Author . 



^f.^*^/« 




Title 



Imprint. 



18 — 47372-2 ffPO 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN 
MEMORIZING 



BY 

Arthur I. Gates, M. A. 

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty 

of Philosophy, Columbia University 



REPRINTED FROM 

ARCHIVES OF PSYCHOLOGY 

No. 40 



NEW YORK 
I9I7 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN 
MEMORIZING 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN 
MEMORIZING 



BY 

Arthur I. Gates, M. A. 

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 

the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty 

of Philosophy, Columbia University 



REPRINTED FROM 

ARCHIVES OF PSYCHOLOGY 

No. 40 



NEW YORK 
I917 



L'ZB /<D 6 3 






UNIVERSITY PRINTING OFFICE 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

I. Introductory statement of the problem i 

II. Summary of previous studies on the problem ... 4 

III. The subjects, materials, and methods of procedure . 24 

IV. Quantitative results 35 

V. An analysis of reading and recitation as 

factors in learning 65 

VI. Conclusions and pedagogical implications .... 99 



PREFACE 

The present investigation was begun in the Psychological Labo- 
ratory of the University of California in the spring of 19 16. The 
experiments in which children served as subjects were conducted in 
a public school in Oakland, California, while those upon adults 
were, for the most part, carried out in the Psychological Laboratory 
of Columbia University. 

The writer has been fortunate in having enjoyed, during the 
course of the work, endless encouragement, suggestions, and assis- 
tance from a large number of people. To Mr. N. Ricciardi, Prin- 
cipal of the school visited, I am indebted for the privilege of con- 
ducting the experiments upon his charges as well as for the ready 
help in arranging details for the work. To the many teachers whose 
class-rooms I invaded, I am indebted for the kindliest toleration and 
for a great deal of valuable assistance. My debt of gratitude to 
Professors G. M. Stratton and Warner Brown of the University of 
California and to Professors J. McKeen Cattell, R. S. Woodworth, 
E. L. Thorndike, H. L. Hollingworth, and Dr. A. T. Poffenberger of 
Columbia University, is very great. To my friend Charles E. 
Martin, I am indebted for valuable suggestions and criticisms in the 
preparation of the manuscript. 



INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 

The process of learning as carried on by most adults depending 
upon their native resources or practical experience, is frequently 
interrupted by attempts at recitation or voluntary recall of what 
has been learned. We tend to introduce an attempt at recitation at 
the earliest possible moment, usually long before a perfect repro- 
duction is possible. In that case, as a rule, we refer promptly to the 
material being studied in order to complete the perusal. For 
example, many years ago Francis Bacon observed, "If you read any- 
thing over twenty times you will not learn it by heart so easily as 
if you were to read it only ten, trying to repeat it between whiles, 
and when memory failed looking at the book." ^ The spontaneous 
methods of learning of many people resort so naturally to these 
attempted reproductions that we can hardly refuse to believe that 
they are helpful. Yet most of us would admit that the dominating 
idea behind such a procedure is the fear of studying the lesson more 
than is absolutely necessary, and it is by no means clear that intro- 
ducing the recitation too early in the learning process may not 
result in loss of time. This gives rise to several practical questions, 
such as: — Is an attempted recitation of as much value in learning 
as another perusal or reading, and is a recitation at one stage of the 
learning as valuable as at another? 

It is at once obvious that the solution of such questions is of 
tremendous import for the work of the school. It is imperative that 
recall or recitation, as a factor in learning, should be analysed and 
its quantitative importance determined. Although several studies 
of the problem have been made within the last decade, facts that 
will permit indisputable application to the work of the school-room 
are still wanting. The amount of experimentation required to solve 
the problem adequately is much greater than would at first thought 
appear, since different results might be expected according to the 
age and training of the subject, the kind of material employed, the 
length of the lesson or the purpose of the learner, i. e., whether the 
material is to be 'learned by heart' or only partly learned. The 
general condition of the problem is indicated by a recent statement 
of Meumann, who, after summarizing the work in the field, con- 

1 Novum Organum, 1620, translated by James Spedding, edition of 1863, p. 229. 



2 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

eluded that^ "it is indispensable that such experiments be repeated 
and confirmed before the results are applied to pedagogy." 

That great variations in the methods of learning exist even among 
adults with college training will be surprisingly evident to anyone 
who will select at random twenty such individuals and carefully 
observe the means employed in learning a stanza of poetry or a 
series of nonsense syllables. Many cases of alleged 'poor memories' 
may prove to be due to poor methods of study. One would even 
more confidently expect to find among children a greater number of 
inefTective methods of studying. In fact Miss M.J. Baldwin made 
a study of this matter » and found that such was the case. She 
undertook, by means of questionnaires and observations of pupils in 
Grammar and High School, to determine the methods of study as 
well as the methods employed in testing their attainment. The 
methods of study, as one might expect, were various. Some em- 
ployed one kind or another of attempted recall, such as trying to 
say or write the main ideas, but more than one-fourth simply read 
the lesson through time after time. In some classes from fifty to 
sixty per cent, of the pupils came to the recitation without having 
once attempted to test their mastery of the lesson in any definite 
way. 

Manifestly, when so many of our years are to be spent in studying, 
it is imperative that some information concerning such broad func- 
tions as reading and recitation as factors in learning should be 
obtained and applied. While volumes have been written on methods 
of study and on the economy of learning, so far as children are 
concerned, no objective data are available demonstrating the rela- 
tive value of these two functions which are fundamental in any 
attempt to learn. Earlier investigators have found in the case of 
many adults that the optimum combination of recitation and read- 
ing may lead to the mastery of a given lesson in one-half the time 
required to learn it by reading alone. If such findings should hold 
for children, and if it is generally true, as Miss Baldwin found, that 
twenty-five per cent, or more of the pupils in the schools rely 
entirely upon reading in their learning, the loss of time and energy 
is appalling. 

The present study presents the results of an effort to answer a 
practical problem of the school-room — namely, What are the relative 
values of learning by reading as compared to learning by recitation in 
the case of school children working under school conditions and with 
the ordinary school-room methods of attack? It will be seen later 
that all the previous work on this subject has employed adults as 

• VorUsungen zur Einfilhrung in die experimentelle Pddagogik, vol. Ill, I9i4i P- I30. 

5 'Studies in Development and Learning', Archives of Psychology, 1909, No. 12, pp. 65-70. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 3 

subjects. But as Meumann has said,* "We do not know whether 
recitation is of the same value for children, nor whether the com- 
bination of readings and recitations for optimum results is the same 
as for adults." In most cases, moreover, the earlier researches were 
conducted under rather rigorously controlled conditions. The 
subjects were not permitted to study in their habitual manner; 
sometimes the material was presented tachistoscopically with a 
fixed tempo of presentation, sometimes articulation was prohibited 
or other restrictions enforced. In the present work, so far as 
practicable, conditions were made as nearly normal as possible. 
The material selected is comparable to that with which the pupils 
were accustomed to deal in their daily work. The children studied 
in much the same manner that they would employ in learning a 
vocabulary, a spelling lesson, or a history or geography lesson, with 
the knowledge that at the end of the study period they would be 
given a written examination. Details of material and methods, 
however, will be reserved for a later page. 

In addition to the experiments upon school children, adult 
subjects were also tested with similar materials and methods. The 
data thus obtained will make possible a more adequate comparison 
of the present findings with those of other investigations and will 
be of assistance in better interpretation of the results by virtue of 
the more reliable introspective observations which would be ex- 
pected from the more experienced learners. 

From this study it is hoped that some information will be secured 
on the following points: 

1. The relative value of learning by reading as compared to learning by 
recitation. 

2. The differences in the functions involved in the two methods of learning. 

3. The optimum time at which to introduce recitation into the learning 
process. 

4. The relation of the two methods of learning as dependent upon the age or 
school status of the learner. 

5. The relation of the two methods as dependent upon the kind of material 
employed. 

6. Incidental information concerning the learning methods of children and 
adults. 

In the next section a brief summary of the work previously done 
on the problem will be presented. 

* op. cit., vol. Ill, p. 130. 



II 

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ON THE PROBLEM 

In 1908 M. Dimitre Katzaroff made a direct attempt'^ to obtain 
evidence upon the relative value of reading as compared to recita- 
tion as factors in the learning process. Series of eight or ten pairs 
of nonsense syllables were presented serially on a drum which re- 
volved so as to expose each pair for two seconds. A four-second 
pause was made between perusals. Adult subjects were employed 
exclusively, each learning three or four series at each sitting, a rest 
of five minutes being given between series. After a certain number 
of readings attempts were made at recall by exposing the first word 
of each pair and calling for the second word. Each syllable was left 
in view for twenty seconds unless its associate was recalled earlier, 
and in cases of failure to recall the learner was prompted oralty. 
Various combinations of study and recitation were tried as may be 
seen from Table I. 

The test of memory was made by the 'Treffer' method, the 
original first members, however, being exposed in a new order after 
intervals of twenty-four, forty-eight, or seventy-two hours. The 
time required for each response was measured by a Muensterberg 
chronoscope. Table I gives a summary of the results. 

The general result of these experiments is that recitation, after a 
certain number of original readings, is more valuable than additional 
readings. In most cases, the advantage of recitation is very great, 
measured by the amount correctly recalled, and usually the reaction 
time is less. Tables D and E also show quite conclusively that 
recitations grouped are more effective than recitations interspersed 
with readings. 

The greater effectiveness of recitation is explained by Katzaroff 
as being due in the main: First, to a greater control over the condi- 
tions of learning. Second, to a greater activity of the learner during 
recitation, "in the readings, the subject is passive, calm, indifferent; 
in recitations he is active, he has to seek, he rejoices when he has 
found and is irritated at the syllables which evade his call."^ Third, 
to a greater confidence with reference to the material learned which 
is brought about by recitation, 

' 'Le Role de la recitation comme facteur de la memorisation', Archives de psychologic, 1908, 7 

PP.224-2S9. 

2 Op. cit., p. 257. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 5 

For several reasons, it would be unsafe to consider Katzaroff's 
findings as typical. In the first place the results were obtained from 
too few and highly trained adults. Individual peculiarities may 
play too prominent a role. Moreover, practice effects were not 
sufficiently taken into account, and finally the mode of presenta- 
tion was not the same in the two methods. During the perusals by 
reading the total presentation was visual, but during recitation oral 

TABLE I 

Showing a summary of results obtained by Katzaroff, op. cit. 



Table 


Number 
of subjects 


Number 

of sittings 

for each 


2 Combination 

L reading 

R recitation 


Test after 

number 

hours 


Per cent, 
correct 


Reaction 
time in 
seconds 


A 


I 


4 


L lo R L5 
L 10 R R5 


48 


43 
50 


5.6 
4.0 


B 


3 


4 


L8 L7 
L8 R7 


72 


6 
20 


8.0 
6.7 


C 


2 


4 


L8 L7 
L8 R L6 


72 


9 
15 


7.8 
8.6 


D 


I 


3 


L4 L6 
L4 R6 
L4 RL RL RL 


24 


17 

46 

25 


50 
2.9 

4-5 


E 


I 


3 


L4 L6 

L4 R3 L3 

L4 RL RL RL 


24 


4 
62 

54 


2.9 
31 
2.9 



presentation was added to the visual, since the prompts were made 
by means of the experimenter's voice. 

A more recent experiment by Thorndike'* has given very diff"erent 
results. Twenty-eight adult students learned four vocabularies of 
twenty pairs each, the second by attentive reading and rereading, 
the first by reading the first members and trying to recall the second 
members of the pairs. The third vocabulary was learned in the 
same manner as the second, and the fourth in the same manner as 
the first. The results are given in Table II. 

There is no apparent superiority in the method involving recall; 
in fact, the method of reading and rereading seems to give slightly 
better results. Professor Thorndike explains that "This, however, 
was partly due to the overlearning of the first vocabulary, there 

' For the sake of brevity, let L equal reading and R equal an attempted recitation. Thus Lio 
R5 means ten original readings followed by five attempted recitations. 

* 'Repetitions versus Recall in Memorizing Vocabularies', Journal of Educational Psychology, 
1914, 5, pp. 596-597. 



6 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

being a tendency to take profitable risks in the vocabularies after 
the first." And moreover, "The experiment was too crude and too 
slight to give numerical results worth presenting in detail." 

A more extensive study has recently been reported by Alexander 
Kiihn.^ Three kinds of material were employed: vertical rows of 



TABLE II 



Recall 


Reading 


Reading 


Recall 


Time 
(seconds) 


Number 
correct 


Time 
(seconds) 


Number 
correct 


Time 
(seconds) 


Number 
correct 


Time 
(seconds) 


Number 
correct 


18.6 


13-9 


16. I 


16.9 


15-8 


15-7 


14 7 


14.6 



twelve nonsense syllables, vertical rows of twelve one-syllable sub- 
stantives, and short verses. Two methods of studying were em- 
ployed, one in which the learner read and reread until he was 
confident of his mastery of the material and another in which the 
subject was permitted to employ recitation as soon as he desired. 



TABLE III 





Method of 
learning* 


Tempo Controlled 


Tempo Free 


Material 


Number of 
repetitions 


Time 


Number of 
repetitions 


Time 




Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Verses 


R 


7-5 


7-3 


2 '09" 


2 '06" 


6.5 


6.4 


I '51" 


I '49" 


190 tests 


L 


8.8 


8.8 


2 '26" 


2'25" 


8.2 


8.2 


2'I9" 


2'I5" 


6 subjects 


L-R 


1-3 


15 


17" 


19" 


1-7 


1.8 


28" 


26" 


Words 


R 


153 


14.6 


2'35" 


2'3l" 


II .2 


10.9 


2 '04" 


2'0I " 


132 tests 


L 


20.8 


20.4 


3 '24" 


3'2i" 


18.8 


18.7 


2 '59" 


2'58" 


9 subjects 


L-R 


5-5 


5-8 


49" 


50" 


7.6 


7.8 


55" 


57" 


Syllables 


R 


22.7 


22.7 


3'56" 


3'56" 


18. 1 


177 


3 '33" 


3'38" 


132 tests 


L 


36.6 


36.7 


6'o6" 


6 '09 " 


31.8 


317 


5'22 " 


5'i7" 


9 subjects 


L-R 


13 9 


14.0 


2'l0" 


2'I3" 


137 


14.0 


I '49" 


I '49" 



In some experiments the tempo of presentation was controlled by 
means of a metronome, the subjects being required to repeat a word 
or a nonsense syllable each 0.65 of a second, while in the case of 
poetry a syllable was repeated each 0.4 second. In other tests, the 
subjects studied in their preferred tempo. In all cases, simultane- 

' 'iJber Einpragung durch Lesen und durch Rezitieren', Zeitschriftfiir Psychologic, 1914,68, pp. 
396-481. 

> R — recitation, L — reading. Sum of tests for all subjects. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 7 

ous visual presentaton was employed, the subjects prompting 
themselves and correcting their own errors. For the learning of 
syllables and words, trochaic rhythm was specified. The subjects 
were university graduates and instructors. Each subject learned 
a dozen or more lessons by each of the two methods. Table III 
gives a summary of the results. 

Table IV gives the relation of reading minus recitation to recita- 
tion, computed from the data of Table III. 

TABLE IV 

The Relation of Reading minus Recitation to Recitation 





Tempo controlled 


Tempo free 


Material 


Repetitions 


Time 


Repetitions 


Time 




Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Verses 
Words 
Syllables 


0.17 
0.36 
0.61 


0.20 
0.40 
0.62 


0.13 
0.31 
0.55 


0.15 
0.33 
0.56 


0.26 
0.68 
0.76 


0.28 
0.71 
0.79 


0.25 
0.44 
0.51 


0.24 
0.47 
0.52 



The general result is that for all materials recitation is a more 
effective method of learning than reading only. Rather striking 
individual differences, however, were found, ranging all the way 
from certain subjects who required more than twice as long to learn 
a series of nonsense syllables when no recitation was permitted, to 
others (in all three subjects out of thirteen) for whom reading was 
an equally or even more efTective method of learning than recita- 
tion. The latter are representative of a peculiar type of mechanical 
learners to whom we shall refer again. On the whole, however, the 
advantage of recitation is clear. 

It appears that the advantage of recitation differs considerably 
according to the kind of material being studied ; the more senseless 
and less connected the material, the greater the advantage of 
recitation over reading. Thus, Table IV shows the superiority of 
recitation to be rather small in the learning of verses, about twice 
as great for learning series of words, and larger still for learning non- 
sense syllables. The advantage of recitation also differs according 
to the method of studying that is employed, being in all cases 
greater when the learner is left to employ his own tempo than when 
the tempo is controlled by the experimenter. It was found also 
that in the reading method the subjects were unable to judge so 
well when the material was mastered and often 'made too early an 
attempt to recite'. In general, it was found that the controlled 
tempo hampered the learning to a greater or less extent. 



8 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



After a lapse of twenty-four, forty-eight, and ninety-six hours, 
the material was relearned, the same methods being employed that 
were used in the original learning. Table V shows the average 
results for six subjects. 



TABLE V 

After tiventy-foiir hours. Total number of tests — 84 





Tempo controlled 


Tempo free 


Method 


Repetitions 


Time 


Repetitions 


Time 




Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


Average 


Median 


R 
L 
L-R 


41 
0.9 


4.0 
I .0 


I '06 " 

I '2 1 " 

15" 


I '05" 

I '20" 

15" 


3-8 
4.6 
0.8 


3.8 
4.6 
0,8 


I '00 " 

I ' 1 2 " 

12" 


o'58" 

I'I2" 

14" 







After 


forty-eig 


hi hours. 


Total niimher of tests — 68 




R 




3-9 


3.8 


I '03" 


I '02 " 


3-7 


2, -7 


o'57 " 


o'55" 


L 




4-5 


4-4 


I '14" 


i'i3" 


4-5 


4-3 


I '12" 


l'l2" 


L- 


-R 


0.6 


0.6 


II " 


II " 


0.8 


0.6 


15" 


17" 



After ninety-six hours. Total number of tests — j8 



R 


3.8 


3-9 


I '03" 


I '02 " 


3-3 


3-3 


o'53 " 


0'52 " 


L 


4.8 


4-9 


I '2 1 " 


I '20" 


4-4 


4.6 


l'l2" 


i'i5" 


L-R 


1 .0 


1 .0 


18" 


18" 


I . I 


1-3 


19" 


23" 



The results indicate the superiority of recitation as a factor in 
relearning but do not show that the material learned by the recita- 
tion method is better retained than the material memorized by 
reading alone. In the case of a few individuals, tests were made 
after various intervals by the 'Treffer' method. From the data 
given by Kuhn (p. 463) the following averages for ten subjects have 
been computed: 

TABLE VI . 

Per cent, of material recalled after an interval of from five 
to ten minutes. Test by ' Treffer' method 



Method of 


Lists of words 


Lists of syllables 


learning 


Tempo controlled 


Tempo free 


Tempo controlled 


Tempo free 


R 
L 

L-R 


66.8 

59-3 

7-5 


72.3 
56.7 
15.6 


36.4 

254 
II .0 


32.6 

22.7 

9-9 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



It is apparent that the material learned by recitation is better 
retained. In the case of words, material learned by means of a 
fixed tempo is not so well retained as material learned by a free 
tempo, but this result is not clear for nonsense material, for which 
the opposite, if anything, is true. 

Three subjects were each given twelve tests by the 'TrefTer' 
method first after ten minutes and again with other material after 
twenty-four hours. The results are given below. 

TABLE VII 

Per cent, of material recalled after ten-minute or twenty-four-hour lapses 
Studying done with free tempo 



After ten minutes 



Reading 
Recitation 



33-5 

44.1 



After twenty-four hours 



Reading 
Recitation 



6.2 

II 9 



From this data, Kiihn concludes "the advantage of learning with 
recitation for retention is much greater after a pause of a day than 
after a pause of a few minutes." "^ 

Kuhn found a great deal of interesting information concerning 
individual peculiarities in learning. Many individuals had a con- 
stant tendency to begin to recite too soon, or too late, for the best 
results; some were unable to limit themselves to 'pure' reading, 
more or less recitation unintentionally creeping in; some subjects 
were found who seemed to derive no benefit whatever from con- 
tinued readings beyond a maximum of four or five; and others 
obtained better results under the reading method than when 
recitation was a factor. Kiihn found the latter subjects to employ 
a peculiar form of 'automatic' or 'mechanical' method of learning, 
in which the usual method of building up associations between 
items and binding them into some form of compact 'schema' or 
structure was not employed. Simple visual imprinting was the 
most effective procedure. 

Kiihn came to the general conclusion, "that recitation is more 
effective because it leads to a more fundamental, many-sided work- 
ing over of the material" (p. 443). In recitation the items are more 
attentively observed, the list is more carefully analysed, striking 
words are picked out, and a better 'schema' of reconstruction is 
employed. In the case of those individuals who rely upon the 
various sorts of associative aids in learning, recitation is very 
helpful, but the few who learn mechanically can do as well or better 
by merely reading. 

' Op. cit., p. 466. 



10 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



So far no information has been cited with regard to thie stage at 
which it is best to introduce the first recitation. This question was 
taken up and answered, in a measure, by Witasek.^ Rows of ten 
pairs of nonsense syllables were exposed successively at the rate of 
one per second by means of a Wirth memory apparatus. The 
subject studied aloud both in reading and recitation, and all cor- 
rections and promptings were made orally by the experimenter. 



TABLE VIII (from Witasek, p. 267) 

Showing the superiority of a group of recitations over a 
group of readings, absolutely and relatively ^ 



Number of 
preliminary 


Superiority in 
number of repetitions 


Superiority in 
number of seconds 


Superiority in 
number of prompts 


readings 


Absolutely 


Relatively 


Absolutely 


Relatively 


Absolutely 


Relatively 



Of five recitations over five readings 



6 
II 
16 



2.3 
2.0 

1-4 



90 per cent. 
80 percent. 
70 per cent. 



87 
73 
54 



90 percent. 
80 percent. 
70 per cent. 



80 percent. 

100 percent. 

60 per cent. 



Of ten recitations over ten readings 


6 
II 


1-5 
2.0 


70 percent. 
60 per cent. 


62 
61 


70 per cent. 
60 per cent. 


5 
3 


80 per cent. 
60 per cent. 






Of fifteen recitations over fifteen readii 


igs 




6 


1.8 


60 percent. 


62 


60 percent. 


4 


60 per cent. 



In the case of recitation, however, the first syllables of the pairs 
were spoken by the experimenter. An interval of six to seven 
seconds was given between repetitions. Three series of syllables 
were learned each day, a three-minute rest being allowed between 
lessons. The method of computation used by Witasek is, in many 
cases, somewhat confusing. He frequently makes use of the term 
'imprinting value' ('Einpragungswert') which means the value of 

' 'fiber Lesen und Rezitieren in ilirer Beziehungen zum G^dikchtms' , Zeitschrif If iir Psychologic, 
1907, 44, pp. 161-18S, 246-278. 

9 To make the meaning of the table clearer the procedure may be described more in detail. To 
begin with, the lists were read six, eleven, or sixteen times as indicated. One hour later, the lists 
were in one case read, and in the other case, recited, five, ten, or fifteen times as indicated, and 
immediately after the learning of the lists was completed by further recitations. From these data, 
the saving in the total time required to learn was computed for the groups of readings and for the 
groups of recitations. The table above presents, absolutely and relatively, the differences between 
the savings brought about by reading and by recitation — the differences always being in favor of the 
groups of recitations as shown. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



II 



a repetition in reducing the time or repetitions needed to complete 
the learning. Table VIII shows the superiority of a group of recita- 
tions over an equal group of readings, after a given number of 
preliminary readings, in reducing the time required after an inter- 
val of an hour, to complete the learning so that the entire list could 
be recited without prompts in ten seconds or less. The table is 
based upon the work of seven university graduates and faculty 
members, tested three or four times, a total of twenty-four tests. 
The table shows in summary form a finding which is demonstrated 
in more detail by Witasek, e. g., that the imprinting value of 
successive readings declines very rapidly after the first few. That 



TABLE IX (from Witasek, pp. 184-185) 



Number of 
original 
readings 


Number of 
additional 
readings 


Number of 
recitations 


Total 
repetitions 


Speed of 

recitations 

after one hour 


Number of 
prompts 


6 








6 


78" 


7-9 


6 


5 





II 


75" 


7 


2 


6 





5 


II 


63" 


6 


3 


6 





10 


16 


69" 


5 


8 


6 


10 





16 


74" 


7 


5 


6 


5 


5 


16 


66" 


6 





6 





15 


21 


66" 


5 


5 


6 


15 





21 


73" 


6 


7 


6 


5 


10 


21 


65" 


5 


9 


6 


10 


5 


21 


66" 


5 


7 


6 


10 


10 


26 


69" 


5 


7 


6 


5 


15 


26 


65" 


6 


2 



is to say, readings are pronouncedly subject to a law of diminishing 
returns. In this respect, recitations proved to be a better form of 
repetition. It is apparent, from the table, that recitations intro- 
duced into the learning at almost any point are of more value than 
continued readings. However, the superiority of recitation seems 
to be somewhat greater when introduced after six than when 
introduced after eleven or sixteen readings. This would seem to 
indicate that recitations, too, are subject decidedly to the law of 
diminishing returns. But Witasek explains that in these particular 
tests with a large number of repetitions "the readings unconsciously 
become very similar to recitations." The learner, finding the read- 
ings to become more and more fruitless, is unable to restrain a 
natural inclination to partially recite. 

So far experiments have merely confirmed the current opinion 
that recitations, if not introduced too early in the learning process, 



12 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



are of more value than continued readings. It remains to enquire 
into the combination that will yield the richest returns in propor- 
tion to the outlay of time and energy. Table IX shows the rela- 
tive effectiveness of several combinations as measured by the speed 
of the first recitation after an interval of an hour, together with the 
number of prompts. The procedure in this recitation was as follows: 
The first member of each pair was exposed, the subject responding 
with the second member, whereupon the first member of the next 
pair was exposed and so on. If the subject responded incorrectly, 
he was corrected by the experimenter, and if the subject could not 



TABLE X (from Witasek, p. i84f) 



Number of 
original 
readings 


Number of 
additional 
readings 


Number of 
recitations 


Total 
repetitions 


Speed of 
third recitation 
after one hour 


Number of 
prompts 


6 


O 


O 


6 


37 


1.8 


6 


5 


O 


II 


34" 


1-7 


6 


o 


5 


II 


22 " 


G.8 


6 


o 


10 


i6 


20" 


-0.8 


6 


10 





i6 


32" 


1.6 


6 


5 


5 


i6 


19" 


0.5 


6 





15 


21 


15" 


0.5 


6 


15 


o 


21 


27" 


0.5 


6 


5 


10 


21 


18" 


0.7 


6 


10 


5 


21 


19" 


0.7 


6 


lO 


10 


26 


20" 


0.9 


6 


5 


15 


26 


16" 


0.4 



respond at all within ten seconds, the experimenter gave the response 
orally and exposed the next syllable in the series. 

The results shown in this table are not very clean cut and in some 
respects are rather surprising. Within the various groups showing 
an equal number of repetitions, it is quite clear that a combination 
of recitations with readings leads to a more successful recitation 
after an hour than when reading only was employed in the study 
period. The advantage does not appear to be very great, however. 
What is quite surprising is that a small number of repetitions of any 
sort (six or eleven) leads to nearly as effective a recitation after an hour 
as a larger number (sixteen, twenty-one, or twenty-six). From this 
it would appear that repetitions beyond eleven are pretty largely wast- 
ed, and accordingly recitation, contrary to Witasek's earlier conten- 
tion, must be subject also to a law of greatly diminishing returns. 

The above table (Table X) which was computed from Wita- 
sek's original data, shows that the results for the third attempted 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



13 



recitation after the interval of an hour are quite difTerent from those 
based on the first recitation after the interval. The second, fourth, 
or fifth recitation would have shown a similar difTerence. 

In the case of these later repetitions, the advantage of recitation 
as a factor in the original learning is quite pronounced. It is 
apparent also, that although the law of diminishing returns is still 
seen to operate, its influence is very much less marked than appeared 
in the results for the first recitation after the interval. 

Table XI exhibits the results in terms of the total time required 
to learn the series in two sittings separated by an hour. 

TABLE XI (from Witasek, p. 274) 



Work of the first sitting 


Work of the second sitting 


Combina- 
tion 


Time of 
reading 


Time of 
reciting 


Pauses 

between 

repetitions 


Time in 
recitations 


Pauses 

between 

recitations 


Sum with 
pauses 


Sum 
without 
pauses 


L6 Ro 
Lii Ro 
L16 Ro 
L21 Ro 
L6 R5 
L6 Rio 
L6 R15 
Lii R5 
Lii Rio 
Lii R15 
L16 R5 
L16 Rio 


60 

no 

160 

210 

60 

60 

60 

no 

no 

no 

160 

160 










96 

166 

206 

80 

119 

142 

69 

121 


35 
70 
105 
140 
70 
105 
140 
105 
140 

175 
140 

175 


262 
236 
228 
202 

163 
133 

124 
109 
142 
153 


56 
49 

42 

42 
28 

35 
28 
28 
21 

14 
21 

28 


413 
465 
535 
594 
397 
529 
567 
468 

514 

550 
532 
637 


322 
346 
388 
412 
299 
389 

399 
335 
353 
361 
371 
434 



Table XII shows the data of Table XI rearranged, the combina- 
tions being arrayed in the order of their effectiveness with the 
percentages of time devoted to reading and to recitation. 

The findings indicate that a small amount of work at the first 
sitting pays better than a large amount; that is to say, the series 
can be learned more quickly in the end if only a small proportion 
of the total time is devoted to the first study while the larger portion 
is saved for the review an hour later. There is considerable evi- 
dence that better results are obtained if the original study period 
is partly devoted to recitation; for example, 6 Ls plus 5 Rs gives 
better results than 11 Ls; 11 Ls plus 5 Rs is much better than 16 
Ls and so on. However, the most potent factor is the distribution 
of the recitations. The best results are obtainable when the original 
period includes about twenty-five per cent, of the total learning 



14 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 
TABLE XII (based on Table XI; 





First sitting 


Second sitting 


Combination 


Per cent, of 
time for 
reading 


Per cent, of 
time for 
recitation 


Per cent, of 
time for 
recitation 


Sum with 
pauses 


Sum without 
pauses 


L6 R5 


24 


33 


43 


397 


299 


L6 Ro 
Lii Ro 


23 
39 







11 
61 


413 
465 


322 
346 


Lii R5 


39 


24 


37 


468 


335 


Lii Rio 


35 


37 


28 


514 


353 


L6 Rio 


18 


45 


37 


529 


389 


Li6 R5 
Li6 Ro 


50 
50 


20 



30 
50 


532 

535 


371 

388 


Lii R15 
L6 R15 


33 
17 


45 
55 


22 
28 


550 
567 


361 
399 


L21 Ro 


59 





41 


594 


412 


L16 Rio 


42 


30 


28 


637 


434 



time, allotting about half of this time each to reading and to recita- 
tion. Beyond this amount, recitations introduced into the review 
are much more effective than recitations in the first period of study. 

On the whole, so far as the matter of the relative values of reading 
and recitation as factors in learning are concerned, Witasek's 
method of attack is subject to several defects. In the first place, 
too many variable factors are introduced. The influence of various 
divisions of the lesson, without regard to the methods of study 
employed, makes interpretation difficult. Moreover, as Witasek 
himself points out, the conditions of the experiment were such that 
the readings, especially after a number of perusals, became, unin- 
tentionally, very much like recitations. Witasek's procedure may also 
be charged with most of the defects found in Katzaroff's experi- 
ments; in reading, the subject prompted himself by looking at the 
forgotten syllable, but during recitation, promptings were made 
orally by the experimenter; the subjects were few and all were 
trained adults, whose habitual mode of studying may have been 
seriously interfered with by the particular conditions of the experi- 
ment; and finally practice effects were by no means fully eliminated. 

From his study, Witasek drew the general conclusion that recita- 
tion, as compared to reading, is a much more effective method of 
study. The difference in favor of recitation was attributed in the 
main to a 'higher, degree of attention' which was made possible by 
virtue of the opportunity afforded the subject to gauge his progress 
in the learning and apply himself to the portions that offered dififi- 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 1 5 

culty. The higher grade of attentiveness is closely correlated with 
an apparently 'greater activity' shown during recitation. In read- 
ing the subject is likely to relax into a state of passive receptivity, 
in recitation, the attitude is one of alert, searching {'sich besinnen') 
activity. 

In an experiment by Miss Abbott,^" the problem has been attacked 
from a somewhat different point of view. Miss Abbott endeavored 
to determine the learning types of a limited number of individuals 
and to utilize this information in the interpretation of the numerical 
results. As material, lists of thirty nonsense syllables and sixty 
English words were used. An apparatus was provided such that 
the words or syllables could be exposed singly for any time 
desired. A fixed time (sixteen minutes) was allowed for the 
study period, this time being divided up into various combinations 
of reading and recall. 

The groups of words and syllables were presented in various ways 
as shown in Table XIII. 

TABLE XIII 



Series 


First eight minutes 
spent in 


Exposure 

time per 

item 


Interval 

between 

items 


Interval be- 
tween first and 
second learning 
period 


Second eight min- 
utes spent in 


a 


visual imprinting 


I" 


O 


l' 


visual imprinting 


b 


" 


I " 


O 


15' 


" 


c 
d 


u 


I " 
I" 


o 
o 


45' 
I' 


Recall 


e 


" 


I " 


o 


15' 


" 


f 


" 


I " 


o 


45' 


u 


g 


" 


I " 









h 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


I" 


3" 


I' 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


i 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


I" 


3" 


15' 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


J 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


I " 


3" 


45' 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


k 


visual imprinting 
and recall 


I " 


3" 







All series were allotted a sixteen-minute study period except 
series g and k which received but eight minutes. In series a, b, c, 
and g no opportunity is given for recall, the whole time being spent 
in 'Einpragung'; in series d, e, and f the first eight minutes is 

1" 'On the Analysis of the Factor of Recall in the Learning Process', Psychological Review 
Monograph, 1909, 11, pp. 159-177. 



i6 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



Spent in imprinting followed by eight minutes of recall; while in 
series h, i, and j, three-fourths of the time is devoted to recall, which 
is interspersed with the 'Einpragung' occupying the three-second 
intervals indicated in the table. 

In all cases the subjects worked under certain restrictions. 
During the presentation of the material in series a, b, c, d, e, f, and 
g, the subject was not to form any associative links between the 
items and while one item was before him, he was not to think of 
another. During the recall period in the d, e, f series, while the 
subject was permitted to image the items and form such associations 



TABLE XIV (from Abbott, p. 173) 
Percentages of words and syllables correctly recalled after four hours 



Series 


a 


b 


c 


d 


e 


f 


g 


h 


i 


j 


k 


Subject 


Words 


23 


23 


24 


23 


33 


25 


23 


41 


59 


42 


8 


V 


Syllables 


42 


38 


40 


35 


40 


17 


22 


68 


92 


70 


47 




Words 


8 


8 


13 


29 


12 


8 


5 


97 


98 


97 


62 


w 


Syllables 


20 


15 


12 


20 


30 


27 


8 


97 


97 


98 


62 




Words 


15 


28 


23 


28 


15 


18 


13 


31 


34 


30 


18 


X 


Syllables 


13 


13 


22 


22 


17 


18 


5 


30 


27 


48 


10 




Words 


67 


78 


83 


48 


42 


43 


28 


53 


55 


17 


23 


Y 


Syllables 


67 


53 


70 


67 


63 


50 


57 


63 


67 


53 


43 




Words 


54 






61 








56 








Z 


Syllables 


60 






50 








55 











as he wished, he was not allowed to pronounce them or to write 
them down. 

Five students of psychology acted as subjects in the tests. The 
image type of each was determined as follows: Subject F employed 
inner speech and concrete visual imagery; Subject W was of a 
motor-auditory verbal type; X, motor-auditory with some visual 
imagery; Y was strongly visual, never pronounces a word, just lets 
it 'soak in'; and Z was of mixed type, employing different kinds 
of imagery at different times. 

The test of memory consisted in requiring the subjects to write, 
four hours after the test, all the words or syllables they could 
remember. Table XIV shows the results in the form of percentages 
of the total lists that were correctly reproduced. 

Table XV was derived from Table XIV by subtracting the 
results obtained in series g, from the results obtained in series a, b, 
c, d, e, f, respectively. This table, consequently, presents the gain 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



17 



brought about by the second eight minutes of reading or recall as 
compared to the results obtained by the first eight minutes imprint- 
ing alone. 

TABLE XV (from Abbott, p. 173) 
Showing the advantage of sixteen minutes study over eight minutes 



Series 


a 


b 


c 


d 


e 


f 


Subject 


Words 








I 





10 


2 


V 


Syllables 


20 


16 


18 


13 


18 


—5 




Words 


3 


3 


8 


24 


7 


3 


w 


Syllables 


12 


7 


4 


12 


22 


19 




Words 


2 


15 


10 


15 


2 


5 


X 


Syllables 


8 


8 


17 


17 


12 


13 




Words 


39 


50 


55 


20 


14 


15 


Y 


Syllables 


10 


—4 


13 


ID 


6 


7 





Table XVI gives the results for words and syllables combined 
together with the averages for a, b, c ; d, e, f ; and h, i, j, respectively, 
based on the data from Table XIII. 

TABLE XVI (from Abbott, p. 174) 
Showing the combined results for words and syllables 



Seriep 


a 


b 


c 


Aver- 
age 


d 


e 


f 


Aver- 
age 


li 


i 


j 


Aver- 
age 


g 


k 


Sub- 
ject 




29 


28 


29 


29 


21 


35 


22 


29 


50 


70 


51 


56 


23 


21 


V 




12 


II 


12 


II 


26 


18 


14 


19 


97 


98 


97 


97 


6 


62 


w 




14 


23 


23 


20 


26 


16 


18 


20 


31 


32 


36 


35 


10 


16 


X 




67 


70 


79 


72 


54 


49 


46 


49 


57 


59 


29 


48 


38 


30 


Y 



From Table XV it appears that with the exception of three 
cases the additional eight minutes of reading or recall results in a 
greater amount of material recalled, and for all subjects except Y, 
the value of the additional study is more pronounced in learning 
nonsense syllables than in learning words. 

The most significant comparisons appear in Table XV. Subject 
W, of auditory-motor type, does much better in series h, i, j, than 
in d, e, f, which in turn gives better results than a, b, c. That is, the 
methods restricting learning to visual imprinting alone are the 
poorest of all; the method giving eight minutes of imprinting 
followed by eight minutes recall is much better; while the method 



1 8 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

giving three-fourths of the time to interspersed recall gives results 
about nine times as good as the first. Subjects V and X agree in 
showing sixteen minutes of visual imprinting to be as effective as 
eight minutes of imprinting followed by eight minutes of re- 
call, but each shows to better advantage when three-fourths 
of the time is spent in interspersed recall (series h, i, j). 
These subjects ordinarily employed auditory-motor imagery or 
inner speech and were undoubtedly greatly hampered by some 
of the restrictions placed upon them in the d, e, f series. 
Subject Y, who possessed strong visual imagery, learning by sim- 
ply allowing the items to 'soak in', does very well in the method 
of visual imprinting and very poorly in either method employ- 
ing recall. 

From this study, Miss Abbott draws the following conclusions: 

1. That the factor of recall is always an aid in the learning process. 

2. That when recall comes after the Einprdgung of the material, immediate 
recall is of more value than delayed recall and its value decreases as the delay 
increases in length. 

3. That the recall is of greater value when it is interspersed with the Ein- 
prdgung. 

4. That localization is one of the factors which go to make recall an aid to 
memory, but that the relative importance of this factor is determined by indi- 
vidual type. 

5. That the relative value of recall and Einprdgung depends on individual 
type. 

To the present writer, it seems that the third conclusion, e. g., 
"That recall is of greater value when it is interspersed with the 
Einpragung," is not entirely borne out, at least not in such form as 
to be applicable to every-day, non-restricted methods of learning. 
In the first place, the methods employing the interspersed recall 
devote twenty-five per cent, more time to it than do the methods 
in which the recalls are grouped. Again, the severe restrictions 
placed on the first eight minutes of learning by reading in the series 
a, b, c, d, e, and f are avoided in the series in which recall is inter- 
spersed with reading. It will be recalled that Katzaroff in experi- 
ments in which restrictions were less severe, and employing a 
larger number of subjects, found that recitations grouped gave 
better results than recitations interspersed with readings. (See 

P- 5-) 

A study by Clemens Knors,^^ although not primarily concerned 

with the present problem, contributes some information concerning 

three different methods of memorizing paired material. Method A 

is similar to the 'reconstruction method' introduced by Miss 

11 'Experimentelle Untersuchungen uber den Lernprozess", Archive f. d. g. Psychologic, 1910, 
17, pp. 297-362. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING IQ 

Gamble. ^^ The series was first read through once, the subject then 
attempted to recite both members of the pairs; the series was then 
read again, followed by another attempt at reconstruction and so 
on until learned. Method B was the same except that, in recitation, 
the first members of the pairs were exposed, the learner attempting 
to recite the second members only. In Method C the subject read 
and reread the series until he felt that they were mastered ; where- 
upon he was tested by exposing the first members of the pair as in 
Method B. It will be noted that Method A permits the recitation 
of both members of the pairs, Method B of but the first member, 
while Method C permits no recitation during the learning. 

In all methods the subject read or recited aloud, the number of 
perusals and the number of promptings being recorded. The scores 
are given in the form of the total amount of material that was read 
by the subject plus the amount supplied him in the form of prompt- 
ings or corrections by the experimenter. The following sample will 
show how the score was computed. Suppose a series of fourteen 
syllables is learned by eight readings plus seven attempted recita- 
tions, during which fifty-one syllables were supplied by the experi- 
menter. Then the total score would be eight (the number of read- 
ings) plus fifty-one (the total number of prompts) divided by 
fourteen (the number of syllables in the list). That is, score = 
8 + 51/14 = 11.64. 

From the original data given by Knors, the results shown in 
Table XVII have been computed. Unfortunately Knors did not 
print all of the raw data that he collected, so that some of the tables 
are incomplete. The subjects are three adults (A, B, C) and four 
children (a, b, c, d) eleven to thirteen years of age. The table 
presents the average score of three or four tests for each individual. 

Although the results are somewhat irregular, a few points can 
be made out. Sections H and / indicate that, for adults, Method 
A, which requires the recitation of both members of the pairs, is 
superior to Method B. in which but the second member is recited. 
For Subjects A and C the differences are very great. The same 
subjects, however, show but a slight superiority of Method A over 
Method C in which reading alone was involved. 

Although the findings for the children are very irregular, some 
differences between the methods seem clearly to appear. When 
the series of nonsense syllables to be learned is long (Section L), 
Methods A and B are both superior to C, which permits reading 
only; but when the series is short (Section M) the differences are 
very small. The differences between Methods A and B in either 

" 'A Study in Memorizing Various Material by the Reconstruction Method', Psychological 
Review Monograph, 1909, 10, No. 4. 



20 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



case arc so small as to be negligible. In the case of senseful words, 
the advantage of Method A over C is very great, the two standing, 
for different individuals, in various ratios ranging from seven to 
five up to four to one. It appears in general, then, that children, 
as compared to adults, profit much more through the employment 
of recitation in learning. 

However, but little reliability can be placed upon the scanty 
findings of these experiments. The number of subjects is too small 
and the quantitative results are too meager. The time of the various 
readings and recitations not being kept, there is some doubt whether 
any of the methods would show a distinct advantage with respect 

TABLE XVII (from Knors) 



Sub- 
jects 


H 

Fourteen nonsense 
syllables. Methods 


I 

Eighteen nonsense 
syllables 


J 

Ten sense 
words 


K 

Eighteen sense 
words 




A 


B 


c 


A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


c 


B 
C 


6.9 
10.4 

9 5 


12.3 

145 
13,2 




7-9 
II . I 

7-9 


14.8 
13.2 
12.2 




4-5 

3-9 

41 




4.8 
3.8 
41 


5-2 

4 7 

3.8 




7-2 
6.8 
56 


Sub- 
jects 


L 

Fourteen nonsense 
syllables. Methods 


M 

Eight nonsense 
syllables 


N 

Ten sense 
words 




Fourteen sense 
words 




A 


B 


c 


A 


B 


c 


A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


C 


a 
b 
c 
d 


17.9 
II . I 
III 
10.5 


12.2 
10.8 

13.3 
13.6 


23.7 
29.3 
30.7 

19.6 


14. I 

9-1 

7.8 

10.6 


8.9 

II. 3 

8.7 
9-9 


12.9 

12.0 

131 
II .2 


5.7 

4-3 
5.0 
6.0 




7-3 
10. 1 
19.2 
11-5 


6.5 
5-9 
6.1 
7.8 




12.5 
19 5 

22.4 
17.8 



to the total amount of time required to learn. Unfortunately 
Knors did not print all of his raw data, but from what does appear, 
it is clear that the variability of the performances, especially those 
of the children, is very great. Subject A, for example, in three tests 
of learning series of nonsense syllables by Method A, shows an 
average score of 9.0 with a P. E. of 2.2. On the whole, it would not 
be safe to consider Knors's results as more than suggestive. 



SUMMARY OF RESULTS 



Without doubt, this brief enumeration of the results of such a 
medley of experiments has left but a vague impression with regard 
to present status of the problem under consideration. Perhaps an 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 21 

effort to summarize the findings will assist somewhat to a better 
understanding. Such an effort, however, is fraught with difficulty. 
When one considers the individual differences possible among the 
subjects, the variations in materials, in method of presentation, 
and in the methods of scoring and the like, it can be readily under- 
stood that direct comparison of many studies is quite out of the 
question. Perhaps it will be worth while, first, to review the 
methods of attack employed in the several studies and, by throwing 
the differences into relief, pave the way for a concise summary of 
the outstanding results that will then be presented and for an 
understanding of the relation of the present study to those which 
have gone before. 

1. Differences as regards materials. Most of the studies have 
employed the method of paired associates; as material, nonsense 
syllables in pairs, senseful words in pairs, digits paired with non- 
sense syllables, and foreign words paired with the vernacular have 
been used. Single series of senseless or senseful words of various 
lengths have also been used, and, in some cases, connected sense 
material such as prose or poetry. It is possible that the results 
might differ considerably according to the kind of material used; 
in fact, Kiihn and Knors found that this was decidedly the case. 

2. Subjects. With the exception of the few experiments with 
four boys, conducted by Knors, well educated adults have been 
employed. In nearly every case, moreover, the number of subjects 
has been entirely too small to eliminate differences which might be 
due to the influence of previously acquired habits of study as well 
as the more innate differences such as those considered by Miss 
Abbott. 

3. Methods of presenting the material. In most cases, the material 
has been presented visually, but as was noted above (p. 5) some- 
times the method of presentation changes within the lesson. Both 
Witasek and Katzaroff presented their material visually when the 
subject was reading, but during the recitation the material was 
presented orally. In some cases, the material is printed large, in 
some, small; in some it is held in the hand; in others, it is at a 
distance or thrown on a screen; sometimes the material is pre- 
sented simultaneously, sometimes serially. The tempo of presenta- 
tion is an important matter also. In nearly all cases, the tempo 
was controlled and varies greatly from experimenter to experimenter. 
Kiihn presented syllables at the rate of one each 0.4 second, Abbott 
one per second, and Katzaroff one every two seconds. No one 
knows how closely these rates corresponded to the habitual tempo 
of the learner, and, what is more, as was shown b}^ Kiihn and as we 
shall see again later, the natural tempo of recitation is considerably 



22 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

slower, on the average, than that of reading. In short, the results 
are affected somewhat by the rate of presentation, influence of which 
is likely to be different upon reading than upon recitation. 

4. Methods of reciting or recalling. Aside from employing a 
fixed rate of presentation of the material, the recitation or recall 
often worked under other restrictions. For example, Miss Abbott 
in some tests restricted the learning to mere inner visualization of 
the data. In other cases, Knors for example, the subject was 
required to read and recite aloud. As a result of these various 
controls, the methods of learning became highly artificial; seldom 
was a subject permitted to study in the manner that he would 
spontaneously adopt, and too often the restrictions were not the 
same for recitation as for reading. 

5. Testing the learning and computing the results. Sometimes the 
lesson consisted of a certain number of repetitions, in which cases 
the learning was never complete. The success attained might be 
measured by the rate of the next recitation following immediately 
or after an hour (Witasek), or simply by the amount of material 
that could then be reproduced immediately or after an interval, or 
by the time required to complete the learning then or later. Some- 
times, a certain amount of time was given for study, and the amount 
that could be reproduced immediately or after an interval (Abbott) 
was taken as a measure of the learning. Sometimes, the assignment 
was learned at a sitting (Kiihn), the score being based on the time 
or repetitions required to learn. Other things, such as the number 
of prompts required (Witasek), or the recitation time (Katzaroff), 
have been introduced as a measure of success. Add to these 
differences the highly ingenious yet anything but clean-cut methods 
of computation, such as those introduced by Witasek and Knors, 
and it is clear that to adequately compare the results of these 
studies one with another, is next to impossible. 

Certain other sources of error, such as neglect of practice effects, 
fatigue, diurnal variations in efficiency add to the uncertainty. So 
it is only with all these differences and sources of error in mind that 
an attempt will be made to give a brief summary of the general 
status of the problem. 

First. A predominance of evidence points to a greater effective- 
ness of recitation, compared to reading, as a factor in learning in 
the case of adults, at least. 

Second. This rule holds true only after the learning has advanced 
somewhat by virtue of preliminary readings, but the exact point at 
which it is best to introduce recitation into the learning, or the 
optimum distribution of readings and recitations within the lesson, 
has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 23 

Third. The more reliable experiments, such as those of Kiihn, 
indicate that the advantage of recitation over reading is greater in 
learning senseless, non-connected material than in learning senseful, 
connected material. 

Fourth. The matter of the relative value of recitations grouped, 
as compared to recitations interspersed with the readings, is still 
an open question. 

Fifth. No satisfactory evidence is at hand indicating that the 
general results found for adults will hold in the case of children of 
grammar or high school age and training. 

Sixth. A considerable, but not thoroughly convincing amount of 
evidence indicates that the efficacy of the two methods of study 
depends entirely upon the learning or imagery type of the individual. 

Seventh. The two broad functions, learning by reading and learn- 
ing by recitation, have not as yet been adequately analyzed into 
their constituent functions. 



Ill 

THE SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS 
OF PROCEDURE 

As was mentioned earlier, the present study was devised to 
answer a practical question of the school-room — namely. What are 
the relative values of learning by reading as compared to learning 
by recitation in the case of school children working under school 
conditions and with the ordinary school-room methods of attack? 
So far as practicable, everything was done to secure normal condi- 
tions for the work. The details concerning subjects, materials, 
methods of study, and computation of results will now be con- 
sidered. 

Experiments were conducted with adult subjects as well, the 
data from which will be used for comparative purposes and for 
purposes of determining more exacth^ the functions operative in 
the two methods of study. For the sake of convenience, the experi- 
ments upon adults will be described in a later section where the 
results are presented. 

The Subjects 

The subjects used were pupils of a grammar school of Oakland, 
California. The members of the first, fourth, sixth, and eighth 
grades acted as subjects for the experiments in which the nonsense 
syllables were used, and the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth 
grades for the tests with sense material. Each class consisted of 
from forty to forty-five pupils. 

The school in which the experiments were conducted is situated 
in a residential suburb of Oakland and draws its pupils from the 
homes of business men and artisans of moderate means. In general 
the school stands in the first class. 

As will be explained later in detail, the pupils were grouped by 
grades rather than by age for the tests. The following table sum- 
marizes the distribution of the members of the several grades 
according to age. 

Materials Used 

The materials were of two sorts, senseless, non-connected material 
and connected, sense material in the form of biographies. The 
nonsense syllables were constructed in a manner similar to that of 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



25 



Age in years 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 


IS 


16 


17 


Grade i 


24 


13 


4 




















Grade 3 




I 


II 


21 


8 


I 














Grade 4 






5 


16 


II 


4 


I 












Grade 5 








4 


17 


12 


4 


I 


I 








Grade 6 










2 


7 


13 


9 


2 


I 


I 


I 


Grade 8 














I 


8 


13 


12 


7 





Miiller and Schumann.^ The sense material was constructed by 
the writer from material found in J. McKeen Cattell's American 
Men of Science and Who's Who in America. Samples are appended. 
While this material is senseful and connected, the organization of 
different parts of the whole is not so complete and systematic as 
would be generally found in poetry or prose, in which the ideas are 
more closely related and the material more closely unified by 
rhythms, accents, and natural pauses. This biographical form of 
material was used because it was desirable to approximate the kind 
of material that the pupils were accustomed to study in their 
regular history, geography, or grammar lessons. 

The nonsense syllables were mimeographed in vertical columns on 
cards and were handed out one to each student. The sense material was 
mimeographed on sheets which were likewise distributed to the pupils. 

Preliminary tests were conducted in order to determine the 
amount and difficulty of the material to include in the lesson as 
well as to give the subjects some preliminary practice in the tests 
before the actual experimentation began. The kind and amount of 
material was arranged so that the lesson was somewhat too large 
for the best students to master in the time allotted. 

In the case of nonsense syllables, the series contained for the 
eighth grade sixteen syllables; for the sixth, fifteen; and for the 
fourth, fourteen. The pupils of the first grade were unable to read 
or write these syllables, so the teacher kindly constructed series of 
twelve syllables of a kind they were accustomed to manipulating, 
such as ad, en, ig, op, ot, etc. These syllables were written with a 
black crayon by the teacher on large strips of heavy paper. 

The sense material was also arranged to suit the capacities of 
the different classes. For the eighth grade the biographies of five 
men served as a lesson; for the sixth and fifth grades, the same 
biographies for but four men were used. For the fourth grade 
easier biographies of four boys were used ; while for the third grade, 
the biographies of three boys sufficed. Samples of the material are 
appended. 

1 Described by Meumann in The Psychology of Learning, pp. 365-368. 



26 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

The following is a sample of the material used by the fifth, sixth, 

and eighth grades: 

James Church, born in Michigan, February 15, 1869. Studied in Munich, and 
later studied Forestry and Agriculture. Director of Mt. Rose Weather 
Observatory in 1906. Studied evaporation of snow, water content, and frost. 

John Clark, born in Indiana, June 4, 1867. Studied Surgery and became a 
doctor in Philadelphia. Taught at Johns Hopkins. Has visited Italy and 
Russia. Has a brother in Vancouver. 

Morton Clover, born in Ohio, April 25, 1875. Studied Chemistry at Michigan. 
Worked in Manila for eight years. Wrote articles on the content of dog- 
wood, of sugar, and acids. Now lives in Detroit. 

Clarence Cory, born in Indiana, September 4, 1872. Studied in Purdue and 
Cornell Universities. Now lives in Berkeley. Is Professor of Engineering 
and Dean of Mechanics. Since 1901 has been Consulting Engineer of San 
Francisco. Is a member of the British Institute. 

George Curtis, born in Massachusetts, July 10, 1872. Studied at Harvard on 
Geography. Won Gold Medals at Paris in 1900. Member of Boston Scien- 
tific Society. Went on the Dixie Expedition in 1902. 

The following is a sample of the material used by the third and 
fourth grades: 

Harry, is 14 years old. His father is a farmer. Around the farm are red stones, 
black-berry bushes, red clay, green clover, and small trees. Harry is in the 
eighth grade, and is tall and slender. He likes dancing and singing. 

James, was born in June, 1905. He is going to be a carpenter. He can make a 
chair, a stool, a box, a gate, and a window. His mother has white hair and 
wears a black dress. His father is fifty-five years old. 

Harold, was born in New York. He came to California when six years old. He 
is now fifteen years old and has a gun, a bicycle, a kite, a pair of skates, and 
a baseball suit. He is going to be a lawyer and live in Seattle. 

Fred, was born in March, 1898. He lives on 31st and Parker Streets. He 
goes to business college. He is tall, has black hair and blue eyes, wears a 
gray suit and brown necktie. His home is made of brick and granite. 

Since, as will be seen later, the same sort of tests were repeated 
several times, it was necessary to construct different texts equal in 
number to the tests given. ^ An attempt was made, of course, to 
make the various texts of equal difficulty, but as is usually the case, 
they probably vary considerably. That such differences in diffi- 
culty as may exist will not invalidate the results to any considerable 
extent, will be made clear later. 

Method of Conducting the Tests 

Several very conspicuous sources of error are to be contended 
with in experimental work of the present sort. That such errors 
have found their way into the work of previous investigators on this 
topic, has already been pointed out. The more important sources 
of error are as follows: 

2 In the case of nonsense material five tests and five texts were used; in the case of sense ma- 
terial six tests and an equal number of texts. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 27 

(a) Practice effects. In a series of five or six practice periods of 
from five to ten minutes each, it would be expected that practice 
efifects would be considerable. Some of the earlier studies have not 
taken this sufficiently into account. 

(Jb) Unequal difficulty of texts. Since one individual must repeat 
a similar test with many different texts, any inequality in their 
difficulty will affect the results. Even series of nonsense syllables 
may differ greatly in difficulty for different individuals. 

(c) Individual differences. In the case of most of the earlier 
investigations the subjects were so few that individual peculiarities 
may have played a large role. 

{d) Diurnal variations in efficiency and fatigue. It is imperative 
that comparative experiments should be conducted at the same 
hour of the day with subjects as nearly as possible in the same state 
of physical fitness, unless some adequate estimate of these influences 
be introduced as a check. In this respect nearly all of the earlier 
investigators have been negligent. 

In order to eliminate, as far as possible, the effects of such sources 
of error, the method described below was employed in the work.^ 

A class, consisting of forty or more pupils on the average, was 
divided into a number of sections or squads,^ the number of squads, 
for reasons which will be evident, being made equal to the number 
of methods of study that were tested. Each squad thus consisted 
of seven or eight pupils, the personnel remaining unchanged through- 
out. Different texts, of as nearly equal difficulty as possible, were 
of necessity used. A particular squad was tested but once on a 
single day, and to complete the series for each squad required five 
or six days. The accompanying table shows in detail the manner 
in which the tests were conducted. The procedure was as follows: 
At nine a. m. of the first day, squad one was given its first test 
under method one,^ using text one. Immediately after, squad two 
studied the same text, according to method two; then squad three 
worked under method three and so on. On the next day, squad 
three was taken out at the first hour and studied text two according 
to method two ; at the next hour squad four worked under method 
three with the same text and so on. Thus the squads progressed, 
during the five days, through all the trials, texts, methods, and 
hours. The outcome, as shown under the column indicated 'Total' 
is that from the point of view of the methods employed, which is 
the only factor with which we are concerned; all other influences 
are balanced or neutralized. 

' The first grade was handled as a whole and not by squads as were the others. To be taken into 
new surroundings under the charge of a stranger proved to be too disturbing for these little children. 
* Five for the learning of nonsense material, six for the learning of sense material. 
5 'Method' refers to the manner in which the material was studied, see p. 30. 



28 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



Differences in practice effects are neutralized because the sum 
total of practice for any one method is the same as for all others. 
Individual differences are neutralized because each subject has 
studied under each method, and no one more than once, ^he errors 
arising from differences in the difficulty of the texts are avoided, 
because each method has to its credit one group working with each 
of the six texts. The influences of diurnal variations in efficiency or 





Day I 


Day i 




Day 3 


Day 4 


Day 5 


Totals 


Method I 


Squad i 


Squad 


2 


Squad 3 


Squad 4 


Squad 5 


All squads 




Trial i 


Trial 


2 


Trial 3 


Trial 4 


Trial 5 


All trials 




Hour A 


Hour 


E 


Hour D 


Hour C 


Hour B 


All hours 




Text I 


Text 


2 


Text 3 


Text 4 


Text 5 


All texts 


Method 2 


Squad 2 


Squad 


3 


Squad 4 


Squad 5 


Squad i 


All squads 




Trial i 


Trial 


2 


Trial 3 


Trial 4 


Trial 5 


All trials 




Hour B 


Hour 


A 


Hour E 


Hour D 


Hour C 


All hours 




Text I 


Text 


2 


Text 3 


Text 4 


Text 5 


All texts 


Method 3 


Squad 3 


Squad 


4 


Squad 5 


Squad i 


Squad 2 


All squads 




Trial i 


Trial 


2 


Trial 3 


Trial 4 


Trial 5 


All trials 




Hour C 


Hour 


B 


Hour A 


Hour E 


Hour D 


AH hours 




Text I 


Text 


2 


Text 3 


Text 4 


Text 5 


All texts 


Method 4 


Squad 4 


Squad 


5 


Squad i 


Squad 2 


Squad 3 


All squads 




Trial i 


Trial 


2 


Trial 3 


Trial 4 


Trial 5 


All trials 




Hour D 


Hour 


c 


Hour B 


Hour A 


Hour E 


All hours 




Text I 


Text 


2 


Text 3 


Text 4 


Text 5 


All texts 


Method 5 


Squad 5 


Squad 


I 


Squad 2 


Squad 3 


Squad 4 


All squads 




Trial i 


Trial 


2 


Trial 3 


Trial 4 


Trial 5 


All trials 




Hour E 


Hour 


D 


Hour C 


Hour B 


Hour A 


All hours 




Text I 


Text 


2 


Text 3 


Text 4 


Text 5 


All texts 



fatigue are neutralized, since each method has been tried by one 
squad working at each of the different hours. 

Almost ideal arrangements were made for conducting the tests.' 
In a well lighted and well ventilated room about twenty-two by 
fourteen feet in size, a library table large enough to seat about a 
dozen people was provided. The situation of the room was such 
that practically all noise and distractions of whatever kind were 
avoided. Care was taken to keep the physical conditions of the 
room as constant and comfortable as possible. Fresh air was kept 
in circulation, an abundance of light was admitted, and the tem- 
perature was kept constantly between fifty-seven and sixty degrees 
Fahrenheit. 



" In the case of sense material, six methods, squads, texts, etc., were used instead of five. 
' For this I am greatly indebted to the school principal, Mr. N. Ricciardi. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 29 

Since there were but seven or eight pupils undergoing a test at a 
time, the experimenter who stood at the head of the table could 
easily keep an eye on the work of each individual. Any attempt on 
the part of a pupil to copy from another, to loaf, or use improper 
methods of any sort, could be instantly detected. Such policing 
was quite unnecessary and such violations of rules as did occur were 
in most cases unintentional. However, such factors which might 
result in the unreliability of the data were urgently sought, and in 
cases where such an unreliability was known or suspected, the 
entire data of that child were thrown out. In addition to the obser- 
vations of the writer, the opinion of the teacher, especially with 
reference to doubtful cases, was sought and freely obtained. Each 
teacher listed the pupils in her room according to the following 
request, "Please list your estimates of the intelligence of the pupils 
in your room, in order of rank, putting the most intelligent as 

Number one, . Use your own methods of estimating and your 

own conception of what intelligence is. Please do not, however, 
make it a mere record of class standing according to grades received, 
and mere maturity should not be considered." The teachers also 
fulfilled a request to give the names "of such pupils that you think 
on account of feeble intelligence or inattentiveness', lack of persis- 
tence, indolence or inclination toward dishonesty in work, etc., 
would be unreliable subjects for experimental purposes." The teach- 
ers were consulted also in particular cases when the occasion arose. 

As a result of these precautionary measures the work of a few 
pupils was discarded. The following were the chief factors which 
seemed to justify discarding a pupil's data: 

First. Absence from one of the tests. In case a pupil missed one or 
more of the tests, his entire work was discarded. This was necessary 
because in succeeding tests he would be one or more stages behind 
in practice. The absentees on return were allowed to continue the 
work without being told that the data would not be used, as a pre- 
caution against creating any ill feeling among the pupils. 

Second. Copying from others or using unfair methods of any sort. 
Intentional or unintentional disregard of rules was very rare. 

Third. Lack of interest or loafing. Occasionally a pupil from lack 
of interest or less worthy motives, felt inclined to be balky or to 
'quit' for a moment in the midst of a test. The data of such were 
discarded. 

Fourth. Mental defectives. A few pupils were found to be marked- 
ly below the average in the test work. Consultation with the teacher 
confirmed the suspicion of sub-normality and the data of such were 
discarded, although they went through the work with the other 
pupils. 



30 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

Fifth. Physical defectives. Bad cases of eye defects, weakness 
from previous illness, and school-yard accidents occasionally inter- 
fered with maximal performance to such an extent that the data 
were excluded. 

On the whole, however, such cases were very rare and the spirit 
among the pupils was of the finest. A keen spirit of competition 
arose with reference both to an individual's own previous record 
and to the records of other individuals, such that in nearly every 
case the results were the products of the pupils' very best endeavors. 
The number of pupils who completed all of the tests in a satisfactory 
manner ranged from thirty-seven to forty-one in the various grades. 

Methods of Studying 

A single squad having been seated at the table in the separate 
room, a copy of the material was passed out face downward before 
each pupil, and the following instructions were given: "On each of 
these cards is a list of nonsense words [show a sample]. They are 
called nonsense words because in English they have no meaning. 
Now the object of the test toda}^ is to see how many of these words 
you can learn in a certain short time. 

"We will proceed like this. I will give you two signals to start. 
At 'Ready' you take the card at the corner like this and at 'Go' 
you turn the card over and begin to study. 

"Now you are going to study for a while in one way and then 
later you are going to study in a very different way. To begin with 
you are to study by reading this list of words over and over from 
beginning to end [illustrate]. Remember you are to read only. 
You should never look away from the paper; never close your eyes 
to see if you can say the words; in fact never say a single word 
unless you are actually looking at it, actually reading it. Remember 
you are to read through from the first to the last every time. 

"After you have read the words through and through in this way 
for a while, I am going to give you a signal 'Recite'. When I say 
'Recite' you are to hold your paper in front of you so that when 
you are looking straight ahead, you look over the top of it and you 
can see it by glancing downward a little like this. Now you are to 
try to say to yourselves as many of the syllables as you can without 
looking at the card. When you cannot remember the next word 
look down at your card and then go on saying as many of them as 
possible without looking. Glance at the card again whenever you 
cannot remember. Go through the list from the first word to the 
last in this way and continue until the word 'Time' is given. 
Remember you are not to look at the words unless you absolutely 
have to. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



31 



"When the learning period is over I am going to ask you to write 
as many of these words as you can." 

It should be remembered that every class had received previous 
practice in the learning. The first grade had been given two trial 
tests of five minutes each, and every other grade one or two trials 
of eight minutes each, the data from which were not used. 

Following is a table showing the absolute and relative amounts 
of time devoted to reading and to recitation in each method. 



NONSENSE MATERIAL 
Grade one 



Method 


Time of reading 


Time of recitation 


Per cent, reading 


Per cent, recitation 


I 


5' 


0' 


100 





2 


4' 


l' 


80 


20 


3 


3' 


2' 


60 


40 


4 


2' 


3' 


40 


60 


5 


l' 


4' 


20 


80 



Grades four, six, and eight 



I 


9' 





100 





2 


7'l2" 


I '48" 


80 


20 


3 


5'24" 


3'36" 


60 


40 


4 


3'36" 


5'24" 


40 


60 


5 


I '48 " 


7'I2" 


20 


80 



SENSE MATERIAL 

Grade three 



Method 


Time of reading 


Time of recitation 


Per cent, reading 


Per cent, recitation 


I 


I'io" 





100 





2 


6' 


I '30" 


80 


20 


3 


4'30" 


3' 


60 


40 


4 


3' 


4'30" 


40 


60 


5 


I '30" 


6' 


20 


80 


6 


45" 


6 '45" 


10 


90 



Grades four, five, six, and eight 



I 


9' 





100 





2 


7'I2" 


I '48 " 


80 


20 


3 


5'24" 


3'36" 


60 


40 


4 


3'36" 


5'24" 


40 


60 


5 


I '48" 


7'I2" 


20 


80 


6 


54" 


8 '06" 


10 


90 



32 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

The study period was made somewhat shorter for the first and 
third grades, because it was found that steady apphcation for longer 
periods was quite fatiguing. 

At the end of each study period the pupils promptly placed the 
text papers face downv/ard and began at once to write the material 
upon sheets that were provided. They were instructed to give the 
material in the original order as far as possible. In the case of 
nonsense syllables, the recall was pure reproduction, but when the 
sense material was used, the names of the individuals whose biog- 
raphies were studied were written on the board in proper order. 
This was the only aid that was given. Ample time was allotted in 
which to write the material remembered. 

Three or four hours later, tests for retention were given. The 
test consisted in simpb/ asking the pupils to write, as before, all 
the material they could remember. No aids were given except 
that the names, in the case of sense material, were written on the 
board as in the immediate test. 

Notes were kept of all manifestations of the children's work 
such as movements of the lips, whisperings, rhythmical move- 
ments of the head, or hands or feet, tappings of the fingers, 
directions of the gaze, etc., in fact, of all appearances which 
might be of later service in interpreting the results. The judg- 
ments of the pupils were frequently called for upon such mat- 
ters as the methods which they liked or disliked, why the non- 
sense syllables were hard to learn and the like. These will be 
dealt with later. 

The method thus far described applies only to the work with the 
school children. DifTerent methods were employed upon the adult 
subjects and they can most conveniently be described on a later 
page where the results are presented. 

TREATMENT OF THE DATA 

Method of scoring the nonsense syllables. The nonsense syl- 
lables were scored by giving three points for a syllable correct in 
form and position; two points for a syllable correct in position with 
one letter incorrect; two points for a syllable correct in form but 
not in correct position; one point for a syllable with two letters 
correct but in wrong position. For example: 



Correct list 


Reproduced list 


pib 


pib 


bah 


dah 


rem 


bug 


lor 


rem 


Cllg 


lag 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 33 

Although more exact methods of scoring nonsense syllables are 
available, it was thought that the additional precision that might 
be obtained by their use would scarcely justify the additional labor 
involved. 

All of the nonsense syllables were scored by a person who had no 
acquaintance with the nature of the experiment. In order to test 
the personal equation as manifest in the scoring, a set of forty lists 
were graded by two individuals, neither being aware that the lists 
were to be, or had been, corrected by another. The variations were 
found to be very small and due to variable errors so that the averages 
were about the same. The average score for forty papers was for 
one grader 22.81, for the other 22.88. From these figures the P. E. 

A. D. dis. 
was computed by means of the formula P. E. = .84435 — 

V n 

The P. E. thus determined is 0.021. The personal factor involved 
in the scoring of results is thus too small to be of significance. 

The material of the first grade pupils (two letter syllables) was 
graded by simply counting the number of syllables that were 
correct in spelling. These children had had but little experience in 
writing on paper and as a consequence their syllables were mixed 
up so badly that it was impossible in many cases to be sure what 
order was intended. Consequently, correctness in form, only, was 
considered. 

MetJwd of scoring the sense material. The sense material was 
scored by dividing the original texts into details, ideas, or facts that 
were mentioned, to serve as a guide. One credit was given for the 
correct reproduction of each of these 'details' when they fell under 
the proper name. When a detail, such as a birthplace, was correctly 
reproduced but applied to the wrong person, one-half a unit was 
given. In some cases the credits of one-half or three-fourths were 
given to details or facts partly correct, depending upon the judg- 
ment of the reader. 

Part of the sense material was scored by one individual and part 
by another, neither of whom was acquainted with the experiments 
in general. To test the reliability of the judgments, forty papers 
were scored independently by each. Variations of small magnitude 
but greater than for the nonsense material were found, but these 
were due to variable errors that compensated each other in the 
long run, producing on an average of forty scores very slight differ- 
ences. The P. E., computed as above, is 0.015. This P. E. is so 
small in comparison with the P. E.'s of the averages that it has not 
been taken into consideration in the final computations of the 
results. 



34 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

METHODS OF COMPUTING THE RESULTS 

The results show the average scores based upon the methods of 
grading just mentioned. To be more accurate, the tables show a 
grand average of the averages of the several squads for each method 
of study. The work of several pupils, for various reasons that have 
been cited, was rejected, with the result that the final number of 
individuals in some squads is greater than that in others. Since, 
from the point of view of any particular method, the practice efifects 
of each squad differed from every other, to permit the results of a 
squad to enter the final average with full weight, would distort the 
figures in a degree amounting to the average difference in efficiency 
due to the greater amount of practice of the one over the other. 
This overweighting was avoided by averaging each squad separately 
and then making an average of these figures. 

For the same reason the P. E.'s could not be computed in the 

regular manner but must be based upon the results of the individual 

squads. Assuming that the averages of the several squads would be 

equal except for differences due to practice, fatigue, and diurnal 

variations, the deviations of the figures within each squad from the 

average of that squad were computed. A sum of the deviations for 

all individuals from the average of their squad was thus obtained 

and divided by the total number of individuals in the class, thus 

giving the Average Deviation. The P. E.'s were then computed 

according to the formula: ^ 

A. D. dis. 

P. E. tr. av. - obt. av. = 0.8453 — 

Vn 

s See Thorndike, E. L., Mental and Social Measurements, New York, 191 2, pp. 186 ff. 



IV 
QUANTITATIVE RESULTS 

It was pointed out earlier that the amount of material given as a 
lesson was slightly greater than the best students could learn in the 
time allotted. Learning was never complete, although in the case 
of many individuals it was nearly so. With nonsense syllables as 
material, the average scores for the best methods are for different 
classes from fifty to seventy-three per cent, of the highest possible 
score. For the sense material, the best average scores are in the 
neighborhood of forty per cent, of the highest possible scores. This 
fact should be kept in mind during the consideration of the results 
which follow. For convenience of expression, we shall speak of 
'methods' in which there was a 'combination of twenty per cent, 
reading with eighty per cent, recitation', etc., but it must be 
remembered that such expressions have a strictly local meaning, for 
several reasons. In the first place, such 'combinations' lead only 
to partial learning of the data. Perhaps the same combination 
would lead to very different results if applied to the time required 
lo completely learn the lesson. A second consideration is that a 
''combination' has reference only to the particular kind and the 
particular amount of material here used. The optimum combina- 
tion would doubtless be different according to the difficulty and 
length of the lesson. These matters will be given more considera- 
tion on a later page. 

RESULTS FOR THE LEARNING OF NONSENSE SYLLABLES 
BY CHILDREN 

Table XVII shows the results of the immediate test for nonsense 
syllables in the form of average with P. E.'s computed in the 
manner described in the previous chapter. Table XVIII shows 
the same data transformed to relative scores in which the average 
of each class for all five methods is considered loo, serving as a 
basis for the other scores. The P. E.'s were changed to correspond. 
Figure i shows graphically the data of Table XVIII, the average 
being denoted by the heavy line, which is enclosed within two light 
lines representing on either side the area including the P. E. ^ 

For the fourth, sixth, and eighth grades the results are clear. The 
results for Grade one were a disappointment and should be considered 

• After the manner originally suggested by Professor J. McKeen Cattell. 



36 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



apart from the others. The averages for this grade seem to indicate 
that Method Five, in which the amount of recitation is greatest, pro- 
duces the poorest results while the methods involving more reading 
show to better advantage. The P. E.'s, however, show the averages 
not to be highly reliable and their significance is slight. One reason 
for this may lie in the fact that a less refined method was used in 
the case of this grade (see p. 2^]). In all probability, moreover, the 
inexperience of these beginning pupils accounts for the results in a 
large measure. They were simply unable to adjust themselves to 

TABLE XVII 

Showing the average score for each grade for the various methods of study 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


s 


Combination in mins. and sees. 


/ Lp' Ro 


Lv'iz' 
Ri'48" 


Ls'24' 
R3'36' 


L3'36' 
Rs'24' 


Li'48' 

R7'i2' 


Combination in per cent. 


Lioo Ro 


L80 R20 


L60 R40 


L40 R60 


L20 R80 


Grade eight Average score 


16.92 


23.86 


25-79 


27.28 


35-51 


P. E. 


0.61 


0,69 


0.65 


0.66 


0.S6 


Grade six Average score 


13.21 


20.18 


22.64 


2515 


30.52 


P. E. 


0.61 


0.84 


0.60 


0.91 


1.07 


Grade four Average score 


9-45 


12.00 


16. 10 


16.95 


20.03 


P. E. 


0.57 


0.46 


0.56 


0.75 


0.79 


Combination in mins. and sees. 


Ls'Ro 


L4'Ri' 


L3'R2' 


L2'R3' 


Li'R4' 


Combination in per cent. 


Lioo Ro 


L80 R20 


L60 R40 


L40 R60 


L20 R80 


Grade one Average score 


6.2 


6.1 


6.2 


5-6 


4-7 


P. E. 


0.22 


0.27 


0.20 


0.20 


0.21 



TABLE XVIII 

Shoiving the data of Table X VII on a relative basis 



Metliod 


I 


2 


3 


4 


s 


Grade eight 


Relative score 


65.40 


92-23 


99.69 


105-45 


137.26 




P. E. 


2.37 


2 


69 


2.53 


2 


57 


3 35 


Grade six 


Relative score 


59-13 


88 


35 


101.34 


112 


57 


136.61 




P. E. 


2-74 


3 


78 


2.70 


4 


09 


4.81 


Grade four 


Relative score 


63.42 


80 


53 


108.05 


113 


75 


134-42 




P. E. 


3-42 


2 


76 


3-36 


4 


50 


4-74 


Grade one 


Relative score 


107.64 


105 


90 


107.64 


97 


22 


81.59 




P. E. 


3.80 


4 


67 


3-46 


3 


46 


3-63 



Method I 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 
FIGURE I 

Based on the data of Tables XVIII and XIX 
234 



37 



100% 



100% 



100% 



100% 



100% 




38 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

the experiment. Many employed practically the same methods of 
study throughout, as could be seen from observation in some cases. 
Others made an effort to follow the prescribed directions which 
often resulted in poor records, especially in the methods in 
which recitation began very early. A great deal of time was lost 
in fruitless endeavor to recall syllables that were not as yet forth- 
coming. These young children were not skilled enough in testing 
their knowledge and prompting themselves where needed, which 
probably accounts for the apparent inferiority of the results obtained 
in Methods Four and Five, in which the reading periods were short. 

For the fifth, sixth and eighth grades the results are convincing. 
The averages show a very great superiority of Method Five, in which 
the most recitation is introduced, over Method One which employs 
reading only. Twice as much is learned by the former as by the 
latter method in the same time. The small P. E.'s indicate a high 
reliability of these extreme differences, as well as the fact that the 
same thing is shown by all three classes. The graphs (Figure i) 
show that there is an increase in the amount learned as the relative 
amount of recitation becomes larger, a . fact shown by all three 
classes. The amount of this increase is not constant, however, 
being marked by a particularly great difference between Method One 
which permits no recitation and Method Two which gave twenty per 
cent, of the time to recitation. The effect of a minute and a half 
of recitation is very marked. The increase in effectiveness is fairly 
constant from Method Two to Three to Four, but the step from Four 
to Five is somewhat greater than any one of these. The most 
probable explanation for this exceptional score in the case of 
Method Five is that it was usually productive of a little more 
enthusiasm than other methods. The children anticipated this as 
the 'record breaking' method. 

The reliability of. the differences between the methods has been 

computed in a different way, as shown in Table XIX and displayed 

graphically by the broken line curve in Figure I. This table shows 

the averages of the three grades (eighth, sixth, fifth) for each 

method with the P. E.'s of the averages computed according to 

the formula: ^ 

a dis. 
P. E. tr. av. - obt. av. = .6745 — 1=^ 

V n 

The P. E.'s should be magnified to some extent in this table for 
the reason that the number of cases is very small (three) and that 
influence of any factor tending to create differences between the 
groups considered, for example, the effects of maturity or length of 

2 See ThOrndike, E. L., Mental and Social Measurements, p. i88 ff. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



39 



school training, would make the P. E.'s larger. However, the P. 
E.'s are still very small. 

TABLE XIX 

Showing the average percentile scores with P. E.'s for Grades four, five, and eight 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Average score 
P. E. 


62.65 
1 .01 


87.04 
1.88 


103.59 
1 .40 


110.59 
I 45 


136.09 
0.45 



The following table shows more plainly the differences between 
the various methods and the P. E.'s of those differences, the com- 
putation being based on the preceding table. The formula em- 
ployed for obtaining the P. E. of the differences is:^ 



P. E. diff. = V(P. E. av.)2 + (P. E. av.)^ 



TABLE XX 

Showing the differences of the various methods in percentages with the 
P. E.'s of the differences 



Differences of methods 



2 — I = 24.39 ± P. E. 2. 1 1 

3— I = 40.38=*= P. E.I. 72 
4 — I = 47.94=1= P. E. 1.76 
5— I = 73.44=1= P. E.I. 10 



Differences of methods 



3— 2= 1 5.99=*= P. E. 2.34 
4— 2= 23.55 =fc P. E. 2.37 
5— 2 = 49.05 ± p. E.I. 93 



Differences of methods 



4—3= 7.56=tP. E.2.0I 
5— 3= 33-06 ± p. E.I. 47 
5— 4= 25.50=*= P. E.I. 52 



The differences are all conspicuous and reliable. 

Differences in results among classes 

A glance at Figure i will show that the findings for Grades 
four, six, and eight are very similar. In all grades Method Five is 
about twice as good as Method One. About the only difference is 
that the fourth grade does not do well, relatively, with very short 
periods of recitation. The difference in percentages* of Method 
Two (i' 48" Recitation) over Method One (all reading) is for the 
eighth grade 26.83 per cent., for the sixth grade 29.22 per cent., for 
the fourth grade 17. 11 per cent. Grade four shows the slightest 
superiority of Method Two over Method One, but its value is ren- 
dered somewhat doubtful since the sixth grade shows a slightly 
greater superiority than does Grade eight. Computing the superiority 
of the average score from all Methods over the score of Method 



3 See Thorndike E. L.. op. cit. 



< Based on Table XVIII. 



40 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



Two, the results are: Grade eight, a superiority of 7.73 per cent.; 
Grade six, 11. 12 per cent., and Grade four, 19.47 P^r cent. From 
these figures it appears that the older children are able to do better, 
relatively, with the short recitation periods. 

Summary 

To summarize, then, it may be stated: {First) that for the learn- 
ing of nonsense material by children, recitation after a few initial 
readings is of much greater value than continued readings. (Secojid) 
That after preliminary readings for i' 48", the more quickly the 
attempts at recitation are introduced, the better results will be 
obtained. (Third) No conspicuous differences appear in the results 
for the different classes with the exception of Grade one. (Fourth) 
which for reasons mentioned on p. 27 must be treated as a distinct 
case. 

RESULTS FOR SENSE MATERIAL 

Table XXI shows the results of the immediate test for sense 
material in the form of average scores. Table XXII shows the same 
data on a relative basis in which the average score for all methods 



TABLE XXI 

Showing the average score for each grade for the various methods of study ^ 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


Combination in mins. and sees. 
Combination in per cent. 


( Lq Ro 
Lioo Ro 


Lt'iz" 

Ri'48' 

LSo R20 


Ls'24" 

R3'36" 

L60 R40 


L3'36'' 

R5'24'' 

L40 R60 


Li'48' 

R7'i2" 

L20 R80 


L54'' 

R8'o6' 

Lio R90 


Grade eight Average score 
P. E. 

Grade six Average score 
P. E. 

Grade five Average score 
P. E. 

Grade four Average score 
P. E. 


20. -n 
0.72 

15-13 
0.75 

11.79 
0.40 

14.61 
0.77 


22 . 39 
0.87 

16.55 
0.59 

13 95 
0.43 

16.91 
0.78 


24.84 
0.70 

18.01 
0.69 

15 21 
0.48 

16.36 
0.86 


24-95 
0.69 

17.70 
0.68 

15-96 
0.56 

18.81 
0.77 


25-28 
0.50 

17-77 
0.82 

15-33 
0.50 

17.62 
0.70 


23-75 
0.82 

16.63 
0.68 

15-74 
0.55 

17.20 
0.71 


Combination in mins. and sees. 
Combination in per cent. 


f L7'30' 
\ Ro 
Lioo Ro 


L6' 
Ri'30" 
LSo R20 


L4'30' 

IR3' 
L60 R40 


L3' 
R4'30° 
L40 R60 


Li'3o' 

R6' 
L20 R80 


L4S" 
R6'4S' 
Lio R90 


Grade three Average score 
P. E. 


8.66 
0.39 


10.34 
0.49 


11.18 
0.49 


14.12 
0.46 


13.10 
0.56 


12.09 

0.54 



5 The highest possible score, approximately, is for Grade eight, 60; for Grades six, five and four. 
48; and for Grade three, 36. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



41 



for that grade equals 100. The P. E.'s are computed as described 
above (p. 34). Figure 2 shows graphically the data of Tables 
XXII and XXIII. 

TABLE XXII 

Showing the data of Table XXI on a relative basis 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


s 


6 


Grade eight 


Relative score 


87.78 


94.62 


104.98 


105-45 


106.80 


100.03 




P. E. 


3 


01 


3.64 


2-93 


2 


89 


2.09 


3-43 


Grade six 


Relative score 


89 


21 


97.58 


106.19 


104 


36 


104.77 


98.06 




P. E. 


4 


42 


3.48 


4.09 


4 


01 


4-83 


4.01 


Grade five 


Relative score 


80 


42 


95-15 


103-75 


108 


86 


104.57 


107.36 




P. E. 


2 


72 


2.93 


3-27 


3 


81 


3-41 


3-75 


Grade four 


Relative score 


86 


34 


99.94 


96.69 


III 


17 


104.13 


101.65 




P. E. 


4 


54 


4.60 


507 


4 


54 


4-13 


4.18 


Grade three 


Relative score 


74 


78 


89.29 


96-54 


121 


93 


113. 12 


104.40 




P. E. 


3 


35 


4.21 


4.21 


3 


95 


4.81 


4.64 



A glance will show that the results here obtained differ from those 
received with nonsense material. In general the advantage of 
reading with recitation as compared to reading alone is less great. 
Moreover it appears that introducing the recitation too early proves 
to be of no value; in fact, for the lower grades it may prove to be a 
positive hindrance. This point will be taken up later. All grades 
agree in showing reading alone to be a poor method of study, while 
a combination of forty per cent, reading with sixty per cent, recita- 
tion seems to give best results. 

The following table (XXIII) shows the average results for all 
classes combined, with the P. E.; the methods of computation 
being the same as those previously described. 



TABLE XXIII 

Showing the average percentile {relative) score for all grades combined 

Method 



Relative score 
P. E. 



I 


2 


3 


4 


S 


83-71 
1.64 


95-32 
0.99 


101.63 
1.26 


110.35 
I .90 


106.67 
I. 01 



102.30 

0.74 



In the average results, Method Four seems to be distinctly superior 
to Method Three and possibly superior to Methods Five and Six. In 



42 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



order to more accurately determine the reliability of the differences 
between the methods, Table XXIV was computed after the method 
earlier described (p. 38) using the data from Table XXIII. 



TABLE XXIV 

Showing the differences between the relative scores for the several 
methods with the P. E. of the differences 



Differences of methods 


Differences of methods 


Differences of methods 


2 — I =12.61 ±P. E. 1. 91 
3 — I =17.92 ± P. E. 2.06 
4 — 1 =26.64 ± P. E- 2.50 
5 — I =22.96 ± P. E. 1.92 
6— i = i8.59±P. E. 1.79 


3- 
4- 

5- 
6- 


-2= 6.31 ±P. E. 1.60 
-2 = 15.03 ±P. E. 2.14 
-2 = 11.35 =tP. E. 1. 41 
-2= 6.98 ± P. E. 1.23 


4 — 3 = 8.72=1= P. E. 2.27 
5— 3 =5.04 ± P. E. 1. 61 
6—3=0.67=1= P. E. 1.46 
5—4 = 3.68* P. E. 2.15 
6— 4 = 8.05 =t P. E. 2.03 
6— 5 =4.37 =t P. E. 1.25 



This table shows, that for the average results, every method is 
clearly superior to Method One (all reading), the smallest difference, 
that between Methods Two and One, being more than six times the 
P. E.^ It is also certain that every method except Method One is 
superior to Method Two, the smallest superiority being four times 
the P. E. The difference between Method Three and Four is also 
quite reliable, being four times the P. E. The superiority of Method 
Five over Method Three is more than three times the P. E. ; while 
there is no real difference between Methods Six and Three. There is 
no evidence that Method Four is superior to Method Five, but Four 
is superior to Six, and Five is also superior to Six by small but re- 
liable differences. 

We are safe in concluding then, that in general, Method One, 
which includes no recitation, is the poorest method, while Method 
Four or Five is the best. Method Two is considerably superior to 
Method One and Method Three is better than Two. That is to say, 
the best results are obtained when the recitation is introduced after 
one and one-half to three and one-half minutes of preliminary 
reading. Beginning earlier or later than this leads to poorer 
results. 

Differences in results among the classes 

Such are the findings in general, but it was noted earlier that the 
classes differ in certain respects. These differences appear quite 
clearly in Figure 2. In the first place, the difference between the 

• It should be repeated that the P. E. should be very large for the reason that all the apparent 
differences in the curves for the various classes (see Figure 2) result in attenuation of the P. E. 



Method I 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 
FIGURE 2 

Based on the data of Tables XXII and XXIII 
^345 



43 




44 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

best and the poorest method is greater for the lower grades. The 
superiority of the best over the poorest method is: 

For grade eight 19.02 per cent. Average for 8+ 6 = 18.00 
For grade six 16.98 per cent. 

For grade five 28.44 per cent. 

For grade four 24.83 per cent. Average for 3 + 4 = 35.99 
For grade three 47.15 per cent. 

The differences do not increase uniformly with the grades, but if we 
average the differences for the eighth and sixth grades, also for the 
third and fourth, the latter figure is exactly twice the former, while 
the fifth grade lies midway. The older children are doubtless not 
so badly handicapped by the lack of an opportunity to recite; or, 
stated in another way, the younger children are more dependent 
upon the factors involved in recitation in their learning. 

Another difference also appears. Optimum results may be obtained 
by introducing recitation earlier in the period in the case of the 
upper grades. For Grades five, six, and eight the differences between 
Methods Three, Four, Five, and Six are nil or unreliably small, but in 
the case of Grade four the difference between Methods Six and Four 
is 9.52 per cent. =*= P. E. 6.08; the same difference for grade three 
being 17.53 per cent. ± P. E. 6.0. The introduction of the recita- 
tion period too early has a deleterious effect upon the learning of 
the two lower grades. The probable explanation of this difference 
between the grades is to be found in the better adaptation of the 
older or more experienced learner to the conditions of the test. 
When recitation is introduced too early, the younger pupils waste 
time and energy in fruitless endeavor to recall the material. Posi- 
tive errors of recall are probably numerous also and thus retard the 
learning. The older pupils, on the other hand, realizing that so 
early an attempt at recitation would be unprofitable, continue for 
some time to read, or divide the repetitions between reading and 
recitation, reciting those few sections which can be recalled, but 
referring promptly to their paper when the material is not forth- 
coming. Another explanation is possible, but less probable, e. g., 
that the results are due to a real difference among the classes in 
ability to make rapid headway in the first few minutes of study. 
That this is not highly probable is indicated by the fact that under 
optimum conditions all classes learned approximately the same 
proportion of their respective lessons in the given time. 

A final difference is that the upper grades, in comparison with 
the lower, do better when recitation is not introduced until fairly 
late, i. e., when the proportion of reading is greater. Table XXII 
discloses the fact that for Grades six and eight Method Three (sixty 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 45 

per cent, reading) is as good as any other, but for Grades three and 
four, Method Three is considerably inferior to Methods Four, Five, 
or Six. For Grade three the superiority of Method Four over Method 
Three is 25.39 per cent. =t P. E. 5.65; for rade Gfour, 14.48 per cent. 
± P. E. 6.70. Grade five Hes between the extremes, showing a 
small (5. II per cent.) but scarcely reliable superiority of Method 
Four over Method Three. This difference cannot easily be accounted 
for, precisely, with the evidence at hand. It is probably due to the 
greater experience of the more advanced students in learning 
material — history, geography, and other lessons — in which reading 
plays a very important part. By virtue of this experience, the 
older children were more skillful in employing the most fruitful 
methods of attack in reading which virtually amounted to less pure 
reading, i. e., reading which was in some degree recitation. The 
younger children stuck more strictly to pure reading. These 
matters, however, must be waived to a later consideration. It is 
only necessary here to suggest that such class differences, whatever 
the explanation for them may be, are of marked pedagogical 
importance. 

Summary of Results f or Sense Material 

1. In general, best results are obtained by introducing re citation 
after devotin g about forty per cent, of the time to reading. Intro- 
.ducing recita tion too early or too late lead s to poorer results . 

2. In general, the optimum combination of reading and recita- 
tion, under the conditions of the present tests, shows a superiority 
over reading alone by about thirty per cent. 

3. The lower grades differ from the upper grades in three respects. 

a. The advantage of the best combination of reading and 
recitation over the method of learning by reading alone is twice 
as great for the lower grades, the average for grades three and 
four being 35.99 per cent, as compared to 18.00 per cent, the 
average for grades six and eight. 

b. Introducing recitation earlier than the stage indicated in 
(i) above, had a disadvantageous effect upon the learning of the 
lower grades, but little or no ill effect upon the work of the upper 
grades. 

c. The upper grades, in comparison with the lower, learn more 
effectively under the methods involving a relatively large amount 
of reading. 

RESULTS AS REGARDS RETENTION OF NONSENSE MATERIAL 

Tests for retention of nonsense syllables were given from three to 
four hours after the learning period, the exact intervals varying for 



46 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



different classes but being always the same for all squads of any 
one class. The pupils were simply asked to write down in proper 
order all the syllables they could remember. It is impossible to 
determine the unreliability of the retention results due to review, 
intentional or otherwise, on the part of the pupils during the inter- 
val between the learning period and the tests. That a few pupils 
did review the material during the interim was obvious from the 
fact that they obtained a higher score in the retention tests than in 
the immediate test. Such results were, of course, discarded. It 
was impossible to detect other cases in which the reviewing was 
less extensive. With the exception of a few suspicious cases, the 
results showed little or no indication of such procedure. An effort 
in the way of appeal from teachers and the experimenter was made 
to discourage such practices, and, on the whole, there are good 
reasons for believing the results, aside from the exceptions men- 
tioned, are quite reliable enough for broad interpretation. It would 
be unwise, however, to give the data much weight for the inter- 
pretation of fine differences, such as the differences between closely 
related classes. 

Table XXV shows the results in the form of averages with P. E.'s 
computed in the manner previously described. Table XXVI like- 
wise shows the results on a relative basis. 



TABLE XXV 

Showing the average scores obtained in the retention tests 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Grade eight 


Average score 


7.02 


12.55 


13.66 


17-55 


22.89 


Interval four hours 


P. E. 


0.42 


0.78 


0.57 


0.67 


0.88 


Grade six 


Average score 


523 


7.12 


9.91 


12.58 


20.38 


Interval three hours 


P. E. 


0.45 


0.54 


0.72 


0.82 


1. 19 


Grade four 


Average score 


3-49 


5.89 


8.35 


10.58 


14-25 


Interval three hours 


P. E. 


0.38 


0.56 


0.53 


0.47 


0.53 


Grade one 


Average score 


4-03 


317 


3-57 


3-37 


3-II 


Interval three hours 


P. E. 


0.18 


0.24 


0.21 


0.18 


0.27 



It is at once apparent that in a general way the results of the 
retention tests are very similar to those of the immediate test. 
Grade one stands by itself again for reasons that have been men- 
tioned. Table XXVII shows the results of Grades four, six, and 
eight combined. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 
TABLE XXVI 

Showing the data of Table XX V on a relative basis 



47 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Grade eight 


Relative score 


47-65 


85.20 


92-73 


119. 14 


155-46 




P. E. 


2.85 


5-30 


3-87 


4 


55 


5-98 


Grade six 


Relative score 


47-37 


64.49 


89.76 


113 


95 


184.60 




P. E. 


4.07 


4.88 


6.51 


7 


42 


10.76 


Grade four 


Relative score 


41.01 


69.21 


98.12 


124 


32 


167.45 




P. E. 


4-44 


6.55 


6.20 


5 


49 


6.20 


Grade one 


Relative score 


116. 81 


91.88 


103.48 


97 


68 


90.14 




P. E. 


5.22 


6.96 


6.09 


5 


22 


7.83 



TABLE XXVII 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


Relative score — average for Grades 
four, six, and eight 
P. E. 


45-34 
1. 19 


72.96 
3-32 


93-53 
1-34 


119-13 
1.92 


169.17 

4-47 



Table XXVIII following shows the differences between the 
various methods computed from Table XXVII. 



TABLE XXVIII 

Showing the differences between the various methods with P. E.'s of the differences 



Differences of methods 


Differences of methods 


Differences of methods 


2 — I =27.62 ±P. E. 3.51 
3— i=48.i9=tP. E. 1.78 
4— I =74.79 ± P. E. 2.25 
5— I =80.75 =t P. E. 4.58 


3— 2 =20.57 =t P. E. 3.60 
4— 2=46.i7±P. E.3.87 
5— 2=96.2i±P. E. 5.56 


4— 3 =25.60 =t P. E. 2.34 
5— 3 =75-64 =t P. E. 4.62 
5— 4 = 50.04 ± P. E. 4.84 



The steps from Method One to Method Five are all large and 
reliable. Nearly four times as much is recalled when the learning 
was predominantly recitation (Method Five) as when it was entirely 
reading (Method One). As the amount of recitation increases the 
amount recalled becomes greater. This increase in the amount 
recalled is fairly uniform with the exception of the comparatively 



48 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



great difference between Methods Four and Five. An explanation 
for this was suggested earHer. 

It will be recalled that in the immediate tests no differences were 
found between the performances of the grades (except Grade one) 
so far as the effects of the different methods of learning were con- 
cerned. In the recall tests, there seems to be a slight difference 
between Grades eight and five with respect to the superiority of 
Method Five over Method One. From Table XXVI the differences 
between Methods Five and One have been computed with results as 
follows : 

Differences for grade eight is 107.81 =*= P. E. 5.83 
Differences for grade six is 137.23 =*= P. E. 11.70 
Differences for grade five is 126.44 =>= P. E. 7.61 

The superiority, in this respect, of Grade five over Grade eight is 
18.63 per cent. ± P. E. 9.53. The P. E. of the average of Grade six 
is so large as to make comparisons with that grade meaning- 
less. Although Grades eight and five do differ by twice the 
P. E., the exception in the case of Grade six and the possibility 

TABLE XXIX 

Showing the score obtained in the retention tests for sense material 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


s 


6 


Grade eight 


Relative score 


9 59 


II .60 


15 29 


15-77 


15-51 


14 53 


Interval four hours 


P. E. 


0.37 


0.50 


0.46 


0.54 


0.47 


0-59 


Grade six 


Relative score 


8.13 


8.61 


12.36 


13 -43 


12.99 


II. 13 


Interval three hours 


P. E. 


0.43 


0.40 


0.60 


0.60 


0.62 


0.57 


Grade five 


Relative score 


717 


8.20 


10.51 


12.28 


10.79 


II .62 


Interval three hours 


P. E. 


0.27 


0.29 


0.39 


0.44 


0.36 


0.39 


Grade four 


Relative score 


7.66 


9.14 


9.67 


11.23 


10.36 


9.90 


Interval four hours 


P. E. 


0.49 


0.44 


0.47 


0.61 


0.47 


0.47 


Grade three 


Relative score 


4-75 


5.83 


8.16 


9.40 


8.89 


8.70 


Interval three hours 


P. E. 


0.36 


0.39 


0.41 


0.43 


0.44 


0.34 



of a more general unreliability of the data (see p. 46) for fine 
distinctions, casts doubt upon this apparent difference between 
grades. 

In general, then, the results for the retention of nonsense syllables 
are similar to those found in immediate tests, with the important 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



49 



difference that the superiority of the methods involving recitation 
is much greater. 

RESULTS AS REGARDS RETENTION OF SENSE MATERIAL 

Tests for retention of the sense material were given from three 
to four hours after the learning tests, the time always being the 
same for each class. The names of the individuals whose biogra- 
phies had been studied were written on the board and the pupils 
were asked to write all they could remember about each person. 
Ample time was given. 

TABLE XXX 

Showing the data of Table XXIX on a relative basis 



Method 


I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


Grade eight 


Relative score 


79 58 


96.26 


126.88 


130.87 


128.71 


120.58 




P. E. 


3.06 


4.14 


3-81 


4-47 


3-89 


4.89 


Grade six 


Relative score 


74-31 


78.70 


112.97 


122.76 


118.73 


101.73 




P. E. 


3 93 


3-65 


5-48 


548 


5-66 


5.20 


Grade five 


Relative score 


71 .06 


81.26 


104. 16 


121 .70 


106.93 


115. 16 




P. E. 


2.71 


2.90 


3-89 


4.42 


3.60 


3 90 


Grade four 


Relative score 


79.29 


94.61 


100. 10 


116.25 


107.24 


102.48 




P. E. 


5-04 


4-53 


4.84 


6.28 


4.84 


4.84 


Grade three 


Relative score 


62.33 


76.50 


107.08 


123.35 


116.66 


114. 17 




P. E. 


4-71 


5-10 


5-37 


5-63 


5-76 


4 45 



Table XXIX shows the results for the various grades in the form 
of averages with P. E.'s computed as before. Table XXX gives the 
same data on a relative basis. Figure 3 gives the data of Tables 
XXX and XXXI in graphic form. 



TABLE XXXI 

Showing the average of the results for all grades 



Method 


r 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


Average 
P. E. 


73-31 
1-93 


85 -44 
2-45 


110.23 

2.83 


122.98 
1-43 


115-65 
2.46 


110.82 
2.27 



Table XXXII following shows the differences between the vari- 
ous methods with the P. E. of the differences, computed from the 
data of Table XXXI. 



50 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

TABLE XXXII 

Showing the differences between the various methods 
with the P. E. of the differences 



Methods 


Methods 


Methods 


2- 


-I =I2.I3±P. 


E. 3.12 


3— 2 =24.79 ± P. 


E. 


3-74 


4—3 = 


i2.75=fcP. E. 3.16 


3- 


-I =36.92 ± P. 


E. 342 


4— 2 =37-54 =^ P- 


E. 


2.83 


5—3 = 


5.42 ±P.E. 3.74 


4- 


-I =49.67=1=?. 


E. 2.40 


5— 2 =30.21 ±P. 


E. 


346 


6-3 = 


o.59±P. E. 3.63 


5- 


-I =42.34 ± P. 


E. 3.12 


6— 2 =24.38 ± P. 


E. 


3-34 


5—4 = 


-7.33=*= P. E. 2.84 


6- 


-i=37.ii=tP. 


E. 2.98 








6-4 = - 
6-5 = 


-i2.i6=fcP. E. 2.68 
-4.83 ±P.E. 3.34 



From these tables it is clear that the general results for retention 
are very similar to those obtained in the immediate test. Method 
Four is the best, while Method One is the poorest. In the immediate 
test (see Table XXIV) Method Four showed a superiority over 
Method One of 26.64 per cent. ± P. E. 2.5 while in the retention 
test (see Table XXXII) the difference is 49.67 per cent. ± P. E. 
2.4 or nearly twice as great. The earlier finding that Methods Five 
and Six are somewhat inferior to Method Four is borne out by the 
similar result in the retention test. On the whole the results of the 
immediate and the delayed tests are similar except that the differ- 
ences between methods are more pronounced in the retention tests. 
In the immediate test Method Four was superior to Method One by 
26.64 per cent. =*= P. E. 2.5; while in the retention test the super- 
iority is 49.67 per cent. ± P. E. 2.4. 

Differences Among Grades 

When the differences between grades are considered, the corre- 
spondence of the results for immediate and delayed memory is not 
so close. The finding in the immediate tests, that the difference 
between the best method and the poorest method was much 
greater for the lower grades, is not borne out by the results for 
retention. 

The average superiority of Method Four over Method One 

For grade eight = 51.29 per cent. ± P. E. 5.38 

For grade six = 48.45 per cent. =fc P. E. 6.70 

For grade five = 50.64 per cent. =fc P. E. 5.19 

For grade four = 36.96 per cent. =t P. E. 8.06 

For grade three = 61.02 per cent. =*= P. E. 7.28 

The magnitude of these differences shows no correspondence to 
order of grades. 



Method I 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 
FIGURE 3 
Based on the data of Tables XXX and XXXI 
2.3 4 5 



51 




52 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

Another difference between grades previously found, namely, 
that the methods introducing recitation very early worked a hard- 
ship upon the lower grades but not on the upper ones, is not shown 
by the results for retention. 



The superiority of Method Four over Method Six, for example, is 

For grade eight = 10.29 per cent. ^ P. E. 6.63 

For grade six = 11.03 per cent. =t P. E. 7.55 

For grade five = 6.54 per cent. =*= P. E. 5.83 

For grade four = 13.77 per cent. =fe P. E. 7.93 

For grade three = 9.18 per cent. =*= P. E. 7.14 

The differences between grades in this respect are nil. In fact, all 
of the differences between the two methods are so small in compar- 
ison with the P. E. as to be of very doubtful significance. 

A third difference found on the immediate tests — that for the 
upper grades a method involving sixty per cent, reading (Method 
Three) was quite as good as any other, while for the lower grades 
this method was distinctly inferior to the methods giving more time 
to recitation — is quite clearly indicated in the findings for 
retention. 

The superiority of Method Four over Method Three 

For grade eight = 3.99 per cent. =t P. E. 5.83 

For grade six = 9.79 per cent. =t P. E. 7.74 

For grade five = 17.54 per cent. =t P. E. 5.83 

For grade four = 16.15 per cent. ± P. E. 7.93 

For grade three = 16.27 P^r cent. =t P. E. 7.68 

For Grades six and eight. Method Four shows no real superiority 
over Three, but in the case of Grades five, four, three real differences 
appear. 

Summary of Results for Retention of Sense Material 

In general, the results are similar to those found for immediate 
tests, the differences between the best and poorest methods being 
somewhat greater. The superiority of Method Four over Method 
One in the immediate test was 26.64 per cent. =t= P. E. 2.5 as 
compared to 49.67 per cent. ± P. E. 2.4, or very nearly twice 
as great. 

In some respects, the findings for the retention tests have not 
borne out the earlier results concerning differences between the 
various classes. But, as was explained before, certain possible 
sources of error in the data from the retention tests render these 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 53 

results of doubtful value for fine comparisons. The findings in the 
immediate tests are probably better indications of real distinctions 
between grades. 

RESULTS FROM EXPERIMENTS UPON ADULTS 
WITH NONSENSE MATERIAL 

In addition to the experiments carried out with children as 
subjects, tests were made upon adult students, using materials and 
methods similar in most respects to those previously described. 
The purpose of this extension of the work was threefold : first, to 
furnish a basis of comparison of the present results with those of 
earlier investigations; second, to permit a comparison of the work 
of children with adults in similar tests; and third, to obtain more 
detailed information concerning the nature of the particular func- 
tions employed in the two methods of learning. 

The subjects for the tests to be described were for the most part 
graduate students, members of classes in experimental psychology. 
The materials used were qualitatively the same as those employed 
with the children. 

Fifteen such students of psychology at Columbia were given, on 
three different days, ten-minute tests with series of twenty nonsense 
syllables. Each day one of the three different methods of study was 
used; first, lo' reading; second, 5' L + 5' R; third, 2' L + 8' R. 

The group was divided into three squads, and practice effects, 
individual differences and differences in tests were neutralized in 
the total by employing a method in all essentials the same as that 
described on p. 26 ff. Therecordsof the individual students, however, 
are fairly reliable as such for the reason that all of these subjects 
had just completed a series of experiments on the learning process 
and memory extending over three months. Each had learned 
during this time several hundred nonsense syllables as well as much 
other material and were thus fairly highly practised subjects. 
Detailed introspective accounts of the factors involved in the 
several methods of learning were requested. These will be consid- 
ered later. Each person acted as subject for his or her regular 
laboratory partner, who kept the time, and noted the number of 
repetitions made. Later the two reversed positions, the former 
experimenter now acting as subject. Each used a different series 
of syllables, and six different texts were used altogether. 

The data were scored by giving a grade for each correct letter 
when there were two or more correct, and an additional credit when 
the syllable was in correct position. The highest possible score for 
the twenty syllables would thus be eighty.'' 

'See Lyon, D. O., 'The Relation of Quickness of Learning to Retentiveness", Archives of 
Psychology, 1916, No. 24, p. 27. 



54 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



Table XXXIII shows the records of the various individuals with 
the average, the A. D.'s, for the number of repetitions and the 
P. E.'s for the obtained average. The P. E.'s were computed by 

a- dis. 

the formula P. E. = .6745 — 

Vn 

The differences between the methods as shown by the average 
results are large and reliable, the P. E.'s being small. In general 
Method Three results in more than twice as much material learned 

TABLE XXXIII 

Showing the scores obtained by adults in learning nonsense 
syllables. Highest possible score eighty 





Method I. Lio' 


M 


;tIiod 2. Ls' 


R5' 


Metliod 3- L2' 


R8' 


Subject 


Repeti- 


Repetitions 




Repetitions 






tions Score 


L 


R 


Score 


L R 


Score 




Day one 




Day two 




Day three 




Hm. 


62 22 


26 


21 


60 


6 25 


78 


Dn. 


54 32 


22 


18 


49 


5 21 


80 


Bm. 


23 16 


13 


II 


58 


5 10 


74 


Bs. 


22 32 


15 


10 


60 


4 9 


80 


Tr. 


50 23 

Day two 


24 


23 

Day three 


38 


6 15 

Day one 


68 


Py. 


55 7 


20 


6 


19 


6 9 


47 


Gl. 


68 9 


17 


5 


40 


7 13 


49 


Bn. 


26 38 


23 


14 


52 


7 16 


78 


Jy. 


26 28 


9 


7 


32 


6 14 


42 


Hr. 


38 36 
Day three 


12 


10 

Day cue 


56 


5 16 

Day two 


50 


Mk. 


37 24 


18 


H 


48 


6 16 


60 


Sn. 


50 29 


24 


20 


58 


9 29 


74 


At. 


36 56 


10 


8 


56 


4 18 


63 


Ly. 


23 12 


25 


15 


43 


6 II 


62 


Wp. 


29 23 


10 


14 


30 


4 15 


50 


Average 


40 25.8 


18 


13 


46.6 


5-7 16 


63.7 




A.D.14 P.E.I. 2 


A.D.5 


2 A.D.5.1 


P.E.1.4 


A.D.i.o A.D.4.0 


P.E.1.4 



as Method One, Method Two stands slightly above the average for 
the other two. Minor diflferences among individuals will be appa- 
rent on observation, but it will be noticed that in but one case is 
Method Three inferior to Method Two and in no case is Method Two 
inferior to Method One, although in one case Method Two is equal 
to and in two other cases very slightly superior to Method One. The 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 55 

superiority of Method Three over the others, is somewhat greater 
than the data show in two cases. Subject Bs. had completely 
learned the series in 8' 42" under Method Three and Subject Dn. 
had completed the learning some time (exact amount not known) 
before the end of the ten-minute period. 

Great individual differences appear with regard to the number 
of repetitions made during the ten-minute study period. The 
average number of repetitions when the learning was entirely by 
means of reading was forty, with a mean variation of fourteen. 
The extreme rates were those of Subject Bs. with twenty- two 
repetitions and Gl. with sixty-eight, or three times as many as Bs. 
Method Two shows similar individual differences in the learning by 
reciting as well as by reading. The average number of repetitions 
for five-minute reading being eighteen with a M. V. of 5.2 and for 
five-minute recitations the average number is thirteen with a M. V. 
of 5.06. The average figures also show that the rates of repetition 
were less for learning by reciting than for learning by reading, 
although as far as this test is concerned, the difference may be 
taken to mean merely that the repetitions in the last half of a 
period of learning are longer than those of the first half. That the 
former interpretation is more likely to be the correct one is indicated 
by the fact that the sum of the repetitions for the all reading test 
(Method One) is greater than for the half reading, half recitation 
test (Method Two), i. e., forty as compared to thirty-one. This 
greater speed of repetitions in the reading portion of Method Two 
is shown by fourteen of the fifteen individuals. Method Three 
shows the same situation, the total number of repetitions here 
being twenty-two, with rather wide differences among individuals. 

More Intensive Work with Nonsense Syllables 

Somewhat more extensive work was done with two graduate 
students, more skilled in introspective observation. Each of these 
subjects was given several preliminary tests to insure an acquain- 
tance with the procedure and to eliminate practice effects to some 
extent, before the main experiment was begun. Series of twenty 
nonsense syllables were studied for eight minutes according to six 
different methods. Three tests were made by each method, and in 
each case the number and duration of the repetition were noted by 
the writer who kept the time with a stop watch. But one test was 
made on a single day. A recall test was made after approximately 
six hours for Subject 5 and after twenty-four hours for Subject T. 
The following table gives the results in detail.^ The data were 

' The durations of the repetitions are not presented here, but will be mentioned in a later 
section. 



56 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



scored in the manner described on p. 53, eighty being the highest 
score possible. The 'natural method' gave the subject liberty to 
study in any way he might choose. 

The results for Subjects S and T are very much the same as the 
average results just found for the larger group. The differences 
between Methods Four and Five for both subjects are too small to 

TABLE XXXIV 

Showing the average results for three trials of each subject 





Metliod One 
8'L 


Method Two 
6'L 2'R 


Method Three 
4'L 4'R 


Combinations 


Repeti- 
tions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 




L 


L 


R 


L 


R 




Subject S, Average 
Subject T, Average 
Subject S, recall after 

six hours. Average 
Subject T, recall after 

twenty-four hours. 

Average 


17 
32 


24 
16 

7.6 
8.6 


8 

9 


2.3 

3-0 


34 
27 

10.3 
II-3 


6 
13 


4-3 

lO.O 


48 
34 

17.6 
13-3 




Method Four 
2'L 6'R 


Method Five 
I'L 7'R 


Method Six 
Natural Method 


Combinations 


Repetitions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 




L 


R 


L 


R 


L 


R 




Subject S, Average 
Subject T, Average 
Subject S, recall after 

six hours. Average 
Subject T, recall after 

twenty-four hours. 

Average 


3-5 
4.0 


5-6 
18.0 


49 
49 

27-3 
22.6 


2 
3 


8 
22 


52 

26.3 

24.0 


2.6 
30 


9 
20 


51 
50 

29.0 
21.3 



be of significance and the 'natural method' produces results that 
are quite as good as any other. This means that trained subjects 
are capable of discovering and employing the best methods of 
attack. Subject 5 began to attempt to recite in the 'natural 
method' after two, four, and two repetitions respectively or at 
about the same stage at which recitation was begun in Methods 
Four or Five. The case is similar for Subject T. Subject 5 in Methods 
Four, Five, or Six learned about twice as much as in Method One, 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 57 

while Subject T learned about three times as much. The recall 
tests after six or twenty-four hours bear out the findings for the 
learning test, being somewhat more emphatic. For Subject 5 under 
the optimum methods shows an amount recalled three times as 
great as under Method One while for Subject T the ratio is nearly 
four to one. 

The speed of repetitions varies considerably for the two sub- 
jects and for the same subject at different times, but in nearly 
all cases reading seems to be done at a higher speed than recita- 
tion, although as will be found later the duration of repetitions 
during reading are very uniform while those during recitation are 
very irregular. 

In addition to the data here presented, a few additional experi- 
ments, somewhat more specialized in nature, were performed and 
are presented in a later section (pp. 71 and 72), in which four- 
teen adult subjects participated in two five-minute periods of 
studying sixteen nonsense syllables, according to two methods: 
first, in which only reading was permitted ; and second, in which 
recitation was permitted from the first. The average results show 
a score 16.4 for the reading method and 32.85 for the recitation 
method, or exactly twice as much. A similar test (p. 81) with eleven 
subjects gave similar results, 5.54 syllables being correctly recalled 
in the reading test as compared to 11. 4 in the recitation test. 

^Summary of Res ults for Adul ts with Nonsense Syllables 

1. Several different experiments upon adult students in learning 
nonsense syllables produce results similar to those found for children. 
The advantage of methods affording an optimum amount of recita- 
tion over the reading methods is very great, the two methods 
showing in general a ratio of about two to one. 

2. Although considerable individual differences were found, no 
.subject was dis covered who did not o btain better results with 

recitation than without it. 



3. Great individual differences were found in the rate at which 
the series were read or recited, but in general the duratio ns o f 

Recita tions are longer than the duratio ns of read ings. 

4. ^The ad vantage of the methods combining recitation with 
reading in the learning period is more pronounce d in delayed than 
in immediate recall. 



EXPERIMENTS UPON ADULTS WITH SENSE MATERIAL 

Non-connected Sense Material 
Two graduate students, 5 and T, acted as subjects for a few tests, 
in studying for eight-minute periods series of thirty words of four 



58 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



letters each, according to several different methods. Two prelim- 
inary trials were given in each case before the actual series were 
started. Two series of tests were given, the order of methods being 
reversed in the second series. No word was repeated in the series 
of lists used. The data were scored by giving a credit of two for a 
correct word and an additional credit if it were in the correct posi- 
tion. Thus the highest possible score would be ninety. Table 
XXXV gives the results: 

TABLE XXXV 





Method one 
8' L 


Metliod two 
4'L 4'R 


Method three 
2'L 6'R 


Method four 
Natural method 


Combina- 
tions 


Repeti- 
tions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 




L 


L 1 R 


L 1 R 


L R 













Subject S 












First 
























series 


12 


30 


7 


4 


49 


3 


10 


53 


3 


II 


51 


Second 
























series 


15 


35 


6 


6 


58 


2.5 


II 


60 


2 


II 


54 


Average 


13-5 


32.5 


6.5 


5 


53-5 


2.7 


10.5 


56.5 


2.5 


II 


52.5 











Subject 


T 












First 
























series 


14 


27 


8 


7 


39 


3 


14 


45 


3 


13 


50 


Second 
























series 


16 


34 


9 


7 


42 


3 


13 


47 


3 


15 


47 


Average 


15 


30.5 


8-5 


7 


40.5 


3 


13-5 


46 


3 


14 


48.5 









Subject S. 


Recall 


after six hours 








First 
























series 




15 






30 












20 


Second 
























series 




12 






17 






30 








Average 




13-5 






23 -5 






30 






20 







Subject 


T. 


Recall 


after six hours 








First 
























series 




12 






25 














Second 
























series 




14 






29 






30 








Average 




13 






27 






30 









RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



59 



While this experiment is far from being extensive enough to be 
decisive, it is suggestive. The subjects were well habituated to this 
kind of learning, having previously learned nearly thirty series of 
nonsense syllables. Both agree in showing that lists of words can 
be more readily learned by a method which permits recitation, but 
the difference between the methods is not so pronounced as was 
found with nonsense syllables. For Subject S, in learning nonsense 
syllables. Method Four was related to Method One as two to one; 
for Subject T the ratio was nearly three to one ; while for lists of 
meaningful words the ratios of the corresponding methods are for 
Subject 5 about one and seven-tenths to one, for Subject 7" one and 
five-tenths to one. The retention tests for series of words show a 
similar ratio, although the data are too few for reliable results. 

Experiments with Connected Sense Material 

Subject T endeavored in six different tests of ten minutes each 
to learn twenty-line stanzas of poetry from Goldsmith's 'Deserted 
Village', according to three different methods. Recall of the 
material was attempted after six hours. The results show the 
number of words learned or remembered. 

TABLE XXXVI 





Method One 
lo' L 


Method Three 
5'L s'R 


Method Four 


Combinations 


Repeti- 
tions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 


Repetitions 


Score 




L 


L 


R 


L 


R 




First series 
Second series 

Average 


II 

12.5 


78 
86 

82 


6 

5 


4 
5 


93 
io6 

99-5 


3 
3 


7 
8 


84 
108 

96 



Recall after six hours 



First series 




44 






66 








Second series 




53 






58 






58 


Average 




49-5 






62 






58 



The advantage of the methods including recitation over the 
reading method is apparent although not very large in both the 
immediate and the delayed memory test. The method employing 
fifty per cent, reading and fifty per cent, recitation seems to be 
quite as good as the method permitting seventy-five per cent, 
recitation. The results, of course, are too few to be more than 



6o 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



suggestive, although they do seem to be quite in harmony with the 
findings for children. 

The biographical sense material used with the school-children 
(see p. 26) was studied by fifteen graduate students under three 
different methods, as shown in Table XXXVII. The fifteen sub- 



TABLE XXXVII 

Showing the number of details or facts recalled 











* 




Combinations 


Method One 


Method Two 


Method Three 






8'L 


4'L 4'R 


2'L 6'R 




Subjects 


Day one 


Day two 


Day three 




Bm 


41 


48 


52 




Ws 


14 


28 


32 




Ky 


36 


39 


45 




Tr 


9 


20 


22 




Sn 


13 


18 


19 






Day two 


Day three 


Day one 




At 


39 


47 


49 




Rs 


40 


47 


39 




Gl 


10 


20 


19 




Py 


8 


22 


20 




Sa 


8 


18 


21 






Day three 


Day one 


Day two 




Mn 


14 


21 


26 




Ce 


23 


27 


31 




An 


18 


24 


27 




Sn 


19 


18 


21 




Ms 


18 


30 


26 


A- 


^erage 


20.6 


28.4 


29.9 


P. 


E. 


2.1 


19 


19 



jects were divided into three groups, each employing a different 
method on the different days. Other details were the same as 
those described on page 53. 

The average results for Methods Two and Three are distinctly 
superior to those for Method One, and this is true practically without 
exception for all of the individual cases. The difference, in the 
average results, between Methods Two and Three is small and being 
no larger than the P. E. is unreliable. The general result of this 
test upon adults is the same as that obtained from the older children 
with the same sort of material. The value of recitation as compared 
to reading is not so great as it is when nonsense material is used, 
and no particular advantage is obtained by introducing the recita- 
tion very early in the learning. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 6 1 

GENERAL SUMMARY 

Nonsense Material 

1. \n general, recitation, after a few ini tial readings, is of much 
more value i n learning than m ore readin g. 

a. Under the conditions of the present experiment a method 
devot ing the first twenty per^nt. of the time to r eading followed 
by eighty per cent, recitation will result in learnin g for immediate 

jreproduction twice as much material as will a method of reading 
_ only. 

b. As measured by recall three to four hours later, the difference 
between the two methods is about twice as great; four times as 
much being recalled under the recitation method as under the 
reading method. 

2. After a certain amount of initial reading (one minute and 
forty-eight seconds or twenty per cent, of the total time in this 
experiment) the more quickly the recitation is introduced th e 
better the results as measured by either immediate or delayed 
recall. 



3. No conspicuous differences appear between the results for 
adult subjects and children or between the various grades with the 
exception that the findings for the first grade differ from all others. 

Sen se Material 

1. In general the best results are obtained from a method devot- 
ing about forty per cent, of the time to reading followed by an 
equal amount of recitation . 

2. In general, the optimum combination of reading and recita- 
tion produces in immediate tests results superior by about twenty- 
seven per cent, to those obtained from reading only. 

a. The di fference shown by recall three or four hours later is 
nearly twice as great as t hat shown in the immediate test . 

3. In most respects the results for adults and for the various 
grades are very similar. 

4. In certain respects differences between the grades were found 
on the basis of the results of immediate tests. 

a. The advantage of the best methods over the poorest is 
much greater in the lower grades than in the upper, e. g., the 
average advantage for grades three and four of the best method 
over the poorest is 35.99 per cent." as compared to 18 per cent., 
the average for Grades six and eight. 



62 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

h. Introducing recitation very early in the study period has a 
disadvantageous effect upon the learning of the lower grades, but 
has little or no ill effect upon the work of the upper grades. 

c. The upper grades, in comparison with the lower, learn more 
effectively under the methods involving a relatively large amount 
of reading. 

5, With the exception of (c) above, none of the differences 
between grades were evident in the results of the retention tests. 
a. This was believed to be due, in the main, to unavoidable 
errors which crept into the retention tests (see p. 46). 

Results from Tests on Adults 

1 . The advantage of recitations over reading is greater the more 
senseless and unconnected the material. 

a. Advantage is greatest for nonsense syllables, less great 
for lists of words, and still less great for connected prose or 
poetry. 

2. Great individual differences appear in the tempo of studying 
by reading or recitation, some individuals completing a perusal on 
the average in one-third of the time taken by others. 

3. As a rule, the tempo is considerably quicker in reading than 
in recitation, for most individuals. 

4. Usually, a given individual during a single sitting, reads and 
rereads at a very uniform speed, while -the rates for consecutive 
recitations are very variable. 

COMPARISON WITH RESULTS OF OTHER INVESTIGATIONS 

The general findings in the present experiment upon children as 
well as upon adults are in harmony with the results of most of the 
earlier investigations, which were presented in Chapter II. It will 
be necessary here to recall but briefly the conclusions obtained in 
some of the more important of the earlier works. 

Katzaroff found, by combining the results for three subjects, 
four tests each, that fifteen readings of nonsense syllables — the test 
being made seventy-two hours later — produced a score of six as 
compared to twenty obtained from eight readings and seven recita- 
tions. Other individuals in similar tests, showed even greater 
differences. Witasek, Knors, and Abbott also verified the greater 
effectiveness of recitation in learning nonsense syllables under 
various conditions, although the quantitative determination of the 
superiority of recitation has differed considerably. 

The work of Kiihn, being more akin to the present experiments, 
is of more value for comparative purposes. In immediate tests. 



^ 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 63 

the superiority of recitation over reading found by Kiihn is very 
similar to that found in the present work, for each of the several 
materials used. Kiihn's conclusion (p. 422), "By the majority of 
people [adults] recitation is much better than readings, and the 
relative advantage is greater, the more senseless the material," is 
verified by the present results with children as well as adult 
subjects. 

With regard to the present finding that the superiority of recita- 
tion over reading is greater when measured by delayed than by 
immediate recall, but little evidence has been produced by the 
earlier studies. But the results that are available seem to be in 
harmony with the present findings. For example Kuhn found 
(see p. 8) that a lesson, although learned in very much less time 
by means of recitation than by reading alone, was retained much 
better and that the superiority of recitation in this respect became 
greater the longer the retention test was delayed. 

The matter of individual differences deserves consideration. 
Abbott in experiments upon five subjects found one among these 
for whom reading was a better method of learning than recitation 
and Kiihn found the same in the case of three out of thirteen 
subjects. Both investigators found that such learners employed a 
'purely mechanical' form of learning or were of very strong visual 
type — such that best results were obtained when the subject simply 
'looks at a word and lets it soak in'. Abbott concludes, "We must 
go back to the type of the individual to explain the processes and 
relative efificiency in recall." This matter of learning types will be 
taken up in more detail in the next section. For the present, while 
there is no intention of contending that such extreme types as 
those found by Abbott and Kiihn do not exist, the present work 
indicates that they are in no wise numerically so prominent as their 
findings would suggest. While Kiihn found three among thirteen 
subjects, and Abbott one among five, in the present work, tests 
upon fifty or more adults made under less artificial conditions have 
not produced a single case of such 'mechanical' or 'strongly 
visual' types. In no case has the method of learning by reading 
given better results than a method in which recitation was also a 
factor. Unfortunately, the data of the children cannot be employed 
on this point with assurance, for the reason that the effects of a 
particular method in the case of any individual may be marked by 
practice effects, differences in texts, and the like. However, in spite 
of all these differences, an examination of the individual data shows 
that exceptions to the general rule that recitation is more effective 
than reading are very, very rare. This fact has a very important 
pedagogical significance, since it gives assurance that such appli- 



64 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

cations as follow from a study such as the present one, may be 
made by the teacher to her pupils as a whole without working a 
hardship on more than a very few if any individuals. 

Further considerations of interest to pedagogy, such as the opti- 
mum point of introducing the recitation in the case of various 
materials, and the efificacy of various minor functions employed in 
learning, will be treated in more detail in the next two sections. 



V 

AN ANALYSIS OF READING AND RECITATION 
AS FACTORS IN LEARNING 

The previous section, from an objective point of view, gave us 
certain facts concerning two very broad and complex functions, 
e. g., learning by reading and learning by recitation. It was found 
that the results, measured in terms of the amount of material learned 
in a given time and the amount retained after a given time, differed 
considerably according to the proportion of time allotted to one or 
the other of these two functions. One is interested to discover, if 
possible, in just what manner these two broad functions differ, 
since the result of their exercise is so markedly different. It is 
likely that the best method of discovering these differences is to 
analyse each of the complex functions, as far as possible, into their 
elements, finding just what minor functions are operative and in 
what manner they combine to make up the gross functions of learn- 
ing in each case. If such an analysis can be successfully accom- 
plished, the result should be a much better understanding of the 
two functions as a whole and the production of valuable suggestions 
with regard to the selection and combination of constituent func- 
tions for the most economical methods of study. 

But such a reduction of the complex functions into constituent 
processes that shall be typical is by no means an easy or a certain 
matter. Some of the elementary functions can be observed from 
the outside and can be verified by objective tests, but most of the 
facts can be observed only by the learner and we are forced to 
limit ourselves to his reports upon them. Indeed, most of our 
analysis is of the introspective, or more accurately retrospective 
sort, subject to the limitations of this form of evidence. 

In the present work an effort has been made to get reports as full 
as possible, and as free from suggestion as possible, from subjects 
believed to be reliable and capable. About forty subjects in all 
were used, and they were subjects whose experience seems to have 
fitted them for the retrospective work. Nearly all had had several 
months' practice in introspective reporting, each having learned, 
previous to the experiments, a large number of series of nonsense 
syllables and other kinds of material and having had considerable 
practice in describing their mental imagery in various sorts of 
mental tasks. After each test in the present experiments the sub- 



66 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

jects wrote a full account of the functions employed in the learning, 
such as the kinds of imagery employed, the kinds of 'aids' used and 
how, their attitude toward the work, the satisfyingness and annoy- 
ingness of different methods, the fatigability of different methods, 
and the like. Reports from the children were secured on many of 
these points also. Wherever practicable the introspective accounts 
were checked up or tested by manipulation of the data already at 
hand or by new experiments devised to fit the case, and the results 
of other studies have been freely drawn upon. 

Before proceeding to the results, a few cautions should be indi- 
cated. In the first place, individual differences play a large role. 
No single individual at any time is likely to make use of all the 
minor functions that will be described. Some subjects place more 
emphasis upon certain functions, some upon others, and the same 
individual usually changes his method to some extent according to 
the nature of the material and the like. More constant differences 
among individuals due to earlier training in learning methods or to 
memory types will be mentioned. But just as we found in the pre- 
ceding section no very sharp differences in mental type, and no 
definite cases in which reading proved to be superior to recitation, 
so we shall find that typical methods of learning contain the main 
functions employed by nearly all learners. 

A second caution is that wholesale conclusions from results 
obtained mainly from adults should not be made to apply to the 
learning of children. Necessarily the introspective accounts are 
largely those of adults, but the reports of children have also been 
considered to some extent, and where possible, introspective accounts 
have been verified by objective data obtained from children. That 
the minor functions employed by children should correspond closely 
to those of adults has already been indicated by the fact that the 
results of the exercise of the two general functions have been very 
similar for both classes of subjects. 

With these precautions in mind, a consideration of the various 
activities, aids, and attitudes involved in learning and recalling any 
material will now be taken up, special attention being given to the 
differences that appear according to whether the method of learning 
is reading or recitation. 

Nearly all reports, in the first place, agree in emphasizing the 
fact that learning even a series of sixteen or twenty nonsense 
syllables is far from a simple mechanical task. The number and 
variety of associative aids is remarkable. Where adults go to their 
wit's end for such associations it can hardly be doubted that they 
assist learning. A consideration of such aids is perhaps a good 
place to begin. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 67 

In general it may be said that such aids to learning may be of 
two sorts: one which is found in the material itself, needing only 
to be noted and employed, and another sort which is worked into 
the material by the learner. Of either sort some may be marked 
off as motor in character and others as perceptual. 

ARTICULATION 

Although the tests for learning were always written, the majority 
of adult subjects reported that practice in accurate pronunciation 
of the material was an aid in learning. This was found to be par- 
ticularly true in the case of nonsense material which was difficult 
to articulate. Subjects report that the motor and auditory elements 
of the words were secured better from reciting, especially when the 
material offers great difficulty in pronunciation. The learner is 
likely to begin by carefully articulating the material to himself 
while reading, but if the reading is prolonged too long, these func- 
tions are likely to be neglected. In many cases the explanation 
given for this is that they were able to move down the series of 
syllables more easily without articulating, depending more upon a 
visual imprinting of the data. In recitation this is rarely the case. 
When they attempt to recite the material, the articulation is a 
most natural and in most cases an essential act. The reproduction 
and practice of the motor act is an aid to learning. The school 
children found considerable difficulty in pronouncing the syllables, 
and for them actual articulation was more essential. The members 
of the sixth and eighth grades in answer to the question: "Why are 
the syllables so hard to learn?" wrote, many of them, "Because 
they are hard to say." They also reported that they liked the 
recitation because it gave them a better chance "to see if they 
could say them." Movements of the lips, sometimes without, 
although generally with whispering, especially in the lower grades, 
were very marked in the recitation part of the learning period. 

ACCENTS AND RHYTHMS 

Articulation is usually accompanied by accenting or stressing 
certain syllables or words, according to the report of nearly all 
subjects. The following serve as samples. Subject Rs in one test 
reported accenting syllables one, five, nine, thirteen, and seventeen 
in the series, syllables five and nine being more strongly accented 
than the others. Subject Py accented every third syllable. Sub- 
ject Sn accented every fourth syllable strongly and every second 
syllable less strongly. Subject Bn reported an increasing accent 
within groups of four syllables, the last being most strongly accented, 
followed by a drop to the minimum on the fifth. Sometimes these 



68 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

accents are obvious to an observer who may notice the accompany- 
ing motor activities such as nodding the head, tapping the finger, 
or thumping the foot. That the children employ such accents was 
usually evident from such signs and was usually indicated by the 
whispering which accompanied the learning. 

The value of such accents lies in the fact that a syllable comes to 
be associated with its accent and the act of accenting tends to call 
up the syllable. Although individuals show great differences in 
their choice of accents and the same individual may often employ 
different accents according to the material being studied, in any 
one lesson the accentuation is usually constant and assists learning 
through this tendency to repeat the same motor activity which 
acts as a frame-work upon which the syllables may be affixed. 

Such accentuation should, however, be considered in connection 
with the almost universal employment of rhythm in the learning of 
a series of syllables. Miiller and Schumann,^ Meumann^, and others 
have shown the value obtained from the employment of rhythm in 
learning. The kind of rhythm, like the kind of accentuation, varies 
with individuals and materials. In learning a series of twenty 
nonsense syllables, subject At divides the material into feet of three 
syllables, the first being long and accented, the two following unac- 
cented and short / yj w | '' u kj \ with a pause between 

groups. Subject Py uses an identical rhythm. Subject Sii em- 
ploys a trochaic measure with two pairs combined into a measure 
of four by placing greater accentuation on the third and seventh 

than on the first and fifth ^ . / kj \ kj / kj | . Subject 

Tr employs a measure of four feet, a long accented syllable fol- 
lowed by three short unaccented syllables with a pause between 
measures, / w w v^ | '' v^ u l; 1 . 

According to the reports of most individuals, the employment of 
such rhythms is the most natural thing in learning by recitation, but 
in reading they are not so frequently or easily used. Some report, 
in the case of learning by reading, that they begin by arranging 
the material for rhythmical perusal with accents and pauses but 
abandon the method before the lesson is over because it seems to 
be of no avail. It seemed that a method employing more visual 
factors and less motor would work better; their efforts were directed 
to 'looking hard' at the syllables to assist them to 'soak in'. 
Several subjects, however, reported that they did use a rhythmical 
division of the material throughout the reading, and their opinion 
that it did not prove to be of great value was usually borne out by 
the meagre results of the final tests. "With my eyes on the paper," 

1 'Experimentelle BeitrSge zur Untersuchung des GedSchtnisses', Zeitschrift ftir Psychohgie, 
1894, 6, pp. 81-191. 

2 The Psychology of Learning, translated by Baird, 1913. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 69 

says subject S, "it is hard to do more than just read hard and think 
about the individual syllables. I knew the rhythms and other aids 
would be of more value if I could only look away from the list." 



Auditory and Visual Types of Learners 

It appears that there are certain differences in method according 
to whether the learner rehes more upon auditory-motor elements 
or upon visual elements in learning. In some cases in which the 
learning is predominantly of the auditory-motor type, imprinting 
consists in forming a series of auditory or vocal images of the 
whispered words or a series of successive innervations of the vocal 
muscles, which are often accompanied by sensations or images of 
movements. The subject learns the sounds, muscular feelings, and 
rhythmic sequences of the syllables which he memorizes. Repro- 
duction may be a sort of melody in which the various syllables 
assume their proper rhythmical positions. Usually in reproduction 
the subject cannot get the whole series in consciousness at once. 
He must start the series off and let it run its course. Now many of 
these subjects report that reading is of value to a certain point, but 
if no opportunity for recitation is afforded, the latter part of the 
process of learning is very much hampered and complete learning 
seems impossible. The presence of the words to the eye precludes 
the subjective innervations which are essential for learning. A 
different process seems to be involved when the visual stimuli are 
absent. 

Some subjects reported that they made use of visual imagery to 
a much greater extent. They were not so greatly hampered by 
lack of recitation. But no one was found who relied entirely upon 
visual imprinting, auditory and motor elements being always em- 
ployed as well. Of those who relied to the maximum upon visual 
imagery, most employed a rhythmical division of the material to 
some extent. Such subjects divided up the material into measures, 
with a motor stressing of certain syllables coupled with a visualiza- 
tion of all of the syllables, especially those that were accented. They 
differed from the auditory-motor learners, apparently, only by 
relying somewhat more upon visualization and less upon the audi- 
tory and motor factors. None used visual imprinting alone. In 
the learning by reading these subjects employed the visual factors 
to the utmost, with the corresponding neglect of the auditory and 
motor elements. While their results, as a rule, differed less for the 
two methods than did those of the auditory-motor learners, in no 
case were they so efficient in tests permitting no recitation as in 
the tests in which recall was a factor. 



70 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

Just as there was, among about forty different adult subjects, 
none that could be called a purely visual learner, so there was none 
that seemed to rely entirely upon auditory-motor factors. Visual- 
ization to some extent usually entered into the learning of the latter. 
The differences were merely those of emphasis upon one or another 
factor, and, indeed, among the subjects were many who seemed to 
be able to employ now some factors, now others, according to the 
situation to be met. In general, learning by reading seemed to 
throw the emphasis upon the visual method. 

LOCALIZATION AND NOTING OF POSITIONS OF ITEMS 

A number of aids to memorizing which are more of a 
perceptual than a motor sort are usually employed. They 
are closely connected with the motor aids of articulation, rhythm, 
etc. Some of these depend upon peculiarities or divisions found 
in the material itself, while others are worked into it by the 
subject. 

One important matter is the noting of the positions of certain 
syllables. Such localizations seem always to be an aid to memory. 
Sometimes localization is greatly aided by peculiarities within the 
text, but often more arbitrary methods of obtaining a localization 
schema are employed. Some report that they simply localize a 
certain few 'head-liners' in the series by noting their positions in 
visual space. Although they are not able to visualize all of the 
items, a few are made to stand out plainly, serving as landmarks to 
which others are attached. Other subjects divide the list into a 
certain number of parts, a few syllables thus being denoted by their 
numerical positions. A few report these localizations to be deter- 
mined by modulation of the voice or dependent upon the rhythm 
that is employed. But all report that these localizations are an aid in 
memorizing and that they were more easily employed in recitation than 
in reading. On the introspective side such reports as these are 
found: (subject T) "In reading it was so easy to glide through the 
series that I did not take the trouble to note any special points of 
interest. It seemed that I could do more if I just looked hard at 
the syllables, covering up my ears so that I could do nothing but 
look. But when I began to recite I found that I had to note certain 
syllables specially, which I afterwards used as starting and stopping 
places." Evidently, recitation tests the value of the difTerent aids 
and generally leads the learner to recognize the value of those which 
serve the purpose desired. 

In order to obtain some objective data on the matter of localiza- 
tion, a test was given for that purpose. Fourteen graduate students 
whose status and introspective training have been described, acted 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



71 



as subjects. Lists of sixteen nonsense syllables were used as mater- 
ial. All the subjects studied at the same time, half of them by the 
reading method first and half by the recitation method first. Later 
another experiment was given in which each used the other method. 
Five minutes were devoted to the study and the syllables were 
written down immediately afterwards. The subjects were then 
asked to indicate those whose positions they felt certain were 
correct, those which were doubtful, and those which they were 
sure were incorrect in position. They were then asked to describe 
the means or cues by which they made their judgments. The 
results are shown in Table XXXVI I L 

It should first of all be noted that almost exactly twice as high a 
score was obtained by the recitation method, and this introduces a 
factor which tends to produce a better showing in the matter of 
accurate localization for the reading method. It will be noticed, 
for example, that many subjects in the reading series were certain 
of the positions of only two or three syllables, which were in nearly 
every case the first, or the first and second, and the last. It is well 
known that the first and last syllables are the easiest to learn and 
to localize. In the reading series these two or three syllables form 



TABLE XXXVIII 

Results given in the absolute number of syllables 





Reading 


Subject 


Judged 


Really 




Correct 


Doubtful 


Wrong 


Correct 


Wrong 


Score 


Ln. 


2 


2 





I 


3 


7 


Sa. 


3 


2 





2 


3 


13 


Sn. 


3 


4 


I 


4 


4 


17 


Ms. 


2 


I 


2 


2 


3 


13 


J. M. 


7 


2 





6 


3 


19 


Tr. 


3 


2 


I 


2 


4 


II 


Wr. 


2 


2 


2 


3 


3 


10 


Ce. 


4 


2 


I 


5 


2 


16 


Py. 


9 








5 


4 


21 


Gl. 


4 


4 





3 


5 


14 


Mn. 


6 


4 





7 


3 


23 


An. 


6 


3 





4 


5 


18 


At. 


II 


2 





9 


4 


32 


Rs. 


6 


2 





5 


3 


16 


Average 


485 


2.79 


0.50 


4.14 


3-5 


16.4 


Per cent. 


59-6 


34-3 


6.3 


54-2 


45-8 





72 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 
TABLE XXXVIU— Continued 





Recitation 


Subject 


Judged 


Really 




Correct 


Doubtful 


Wrong 


Correct 


Wrong 


Score 


Ln. 


6 


I 


3 


4 





26 


Sa. 


7 


I 





8 





24 


Sn. 


i6 








16 





48 


Ms. 


7 


3 





10 





23 


J. M. 


8 


I 


2 


8 


3 


30 


Tr. 


13 


2 





14 


I 


46 


Wr. 


4 


5 





4 


5 


24 


Ce. 


12 


2 





13 


I 


42 


Py. 


8 








8 





24 


Gl. 


10 








10 





30 


Mn. 


8 


2 





8 


2 


26 


An. 


7 


2 





7 


2 


25 


At. 


15 








15 





44 


Rs. 


i6 








16 





48 


Average 


9.64 


1-34 


0.34 


10.07 


1 .0 


32.85 


Per cent. 


85.1 


II. 8 


31 


90.9 


91 





a larger portion of the whole number written down than in the 
recitation series. 

In spite of this advantage, the subjects, after learning by reading, 
felt certain of the positions of but fifty-nine and six-tenths per cent, 
of the syllables written down, as compared to eighty-five and one- 
tenth per cent, in the recitation series. The reading series is con- 
spicuous with respect to the number of 'doubtful' cases, which 
amount to thirty-four and three-tenths per cent, as compared to 
eleven and eight-tenths per cent, for the recitation series, or three to 
one. So it is quite clear that the subjects are more confident of 
their opinions in the recitation series. The data also show that a 
much larger number of the syllables learned by recitation are in 
correct position (ninety-one per cent.) than in the reading series 
(fifty-four per cent.). Another important fact appears, namely, 
that the judgments after learning by recitation are not only more 
accurate but also more conservative than after learning by reading. 
As to the first point, while fifty-nine and six-tenths per cent, of the 
syllables written down after learning b}^ reading were judged to be 
in correct position, only fifty-four and two-tenths per cent, actually 
were, while in the recitation series, of those written a larger per- 
centage (eighty-five and one-tenth) was judged to be in correct 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 73 

position, and a still larger percentage (ninety and nine-tenths) 
actually was. An examination of the original data showed that in 
the reading series, of those judged 'doubtful' nearly all were really 
in an incorrect position, as were also nine of the sixty-eight certified 
as 'correct' in position, while in the recitation series some of those 
judged 'doubtful' were really in a correct position, while only two 
cases out of the total of 127 judgments of 'correct in position' were 
wrong. It thus appears that after learning by recitation, the sub- 
jects are both more accurate and more conservative in their judg- 
ments. 

NOTING UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MATERIAL 

The remark was just made that the noting of unusual words and 
characteristics in the material was often an aid in localization. This 
function is of value because it serves to break up the material into 
units that can be more easily handled. A peculiar word or syllable 
becomes a center around which other syllables are grouped, or it 
may serve as a starting and stopping place within the series. 

The kinds of peculiarities noted are myriad. Sometimes it is the 
sound — the children especially are attracted by 'funny sounding' 
syllables. Sometimes a syllable stands apart by having the con- 
sonants each standing above or below the line, e. g., gop, lib. Some- 
times the fact that one letter was printed light, or that the whole 
was blotched or blurred, or that a mark appeared on the page 
opposite it, is noted. More often the associations are meaningful, 
and these will be considered more fully in the next section. 

Subjects report that all such peculiarities are brought out more 
clearly by reciting the material. They are not so effectively brought 
into play when one is reading because the words before the eyes 
render such aid unnecessary. The thing to do is simply to 'look 
hard and try to avoid distractions'. Subject Fx reports: "After 
the reading period was over [four minutes out of eight], I could 
remember only three syllables. I had a hazy idea of some of the 
others but I couldn't quite get them. But by picking out tw^o queer 
looking syllables, the sixth and the tenth, I was soon able to fill in 
those between." 

MEANINGS OF TERMS AND RELATIONS OF PARTS 

Subjects report that the nonsense syllables take on more meaning 
during recitation. Some feel that in merely reading they take the 
syllable as it stands; they may notice its form and position but 
they do not try so hard to make it mean something. The meanings 
come out more clearly when they are forced to reconstruct it in 
recall. The kinds of meanings are various. Sometimes it is a far- 



74 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

fetched resemblance to some familiar word, such as toq = toque, 
soy = say, etc. Sometimes two words are combined to form a 
single word, such as sor-dit = sordid, jor-kih = jerky. Often a 
resemblance to a familiar foreign word is seized upon, qos = Latin 
qiws, or a word is associated with a foreign equivalent, dit = French 
'he says'. Again a syllable is employed as part of some familiar 
word, as gov in governor, and still more common were associations 
between the syllables and the 'nicknames' of known persons. Some- 
times the recurrence of words having a similar look or sound is 
noted, such as toq and doc, and occasionally the first letters of 
successive syllables are combined to form a new word. Sometimes 
the associations are less definite; the syllable merely feels big, or 
dull, or bright, or buzzy, e. g., viz feels 'buzzy', likewise zop; dit is 
short and snappy, qos seems to be 'such a mouth full'. 

In the case of sense material, recitation leads to a more thorough 
understanding, both of the minor details and of the meaning of the 
thing as a whole. They size up the men described more definitely. 
One subject reports, "In reading I was dealing more with a lot of 
details, which I handled mostly in a verbal way. There was no 
flesh and blood about the men. But during recitation, I could 
really picture them as men of [such and such age, size, etc.]." It 
appears that this better grasp of the meaning of the material 
is an aid to memory. In this connection Meumann writes i^ "In 
the case of coherent and meaningful material the chief memorial 
support consists in the apprehension of the meaning and the 
logical context." 

CHANGING METHODS DURING A STUDY PERIOD 

A few subjects reported that they believed one advantage of 
recitation was to be found in the fact that they could shift from one 
kind of imagery to another more readily. In reading they were 
more likely to depend on visual imagery, or, as they reported, to 
use no imagery at all, but simply look at the syllables, while in 
recitation they would employ now one sort of imagery, now another, 
or more accurately emphasize difi^erent sorts of imagery at different 
times. One subject reports: "Sometimes I tried to recall by seeing 
the words in my mind's eye, and sometimes by trying to remember 
how it sounded, and again by trying to say several words quickly 
without imagery. I think this helped since it made the work more 
interesting and allowed me to resort to different methods when I 
got stuck." This shifting from one method to another may have 
made the work more absorbing, but its general value as an aid in 

' The Psychology of Learning, p. 297. ' 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 75 

learning may well be doubted. At all events, the greater freedom to 
employ any method that seems desirable is a notable characteristic 
of learning by recitation. 

PATTERNS AND GROUPINGS 

Closely connected with the previous finding that recitation leads 
to better articulation, accentuation, pauses, vocal inflections, use of 
melody and rhythms, as well as to better localization, noting of 
peculiarities and meanings in the material, is the finding that 
recitation tends more toward a division and grouping of the mater- 
ial. In reading, the syllables are handled more as isolated terms; 
the learner tries to imprint each by itself. In recitation more of an 
attempt is made to make the material over into some sort of pattern, 
a more or less highly organized structure. The patterns differ 
greatly among individuals and vary according to the list of syllables 
used. Very often the structure is decidedly of a rhythmic character, 
associations being formed between accented terms, their positions 
and pauses, as we have seen. In these cases the associations between 
members of a given foot are particularly strong, and the feet, al- 
though they are in the beginning relatively independent, are bound 
together in various ways. Sometimes the groups are of unequal 
length, being determined by the location of syllables which for 
various reasons stand out prominently. More often, of course, the 
groups are of equal size, including from two to six syllables, usually 
three or four. 

Subjects report that this active process of dividing up the material 
and making it over into groups is more easily done in recitation. It 
is, however, very often done in reading also, but it is then more 
difficult to do; the divisions cannot be made so sharply, and the 
ease of reading down the series defeats their purpose. For example, 
one subject {Bn) whose results were very poor in the reading tests, 
said: "A certain amount of reading is valuable to get acquainted 
with the material and to frame up a method of attack, but there- 
after it seems to do me no good. I simply can't learn by more 
reading, except by taking a small bit of the series, giving it special 
attention at one time and later going through it very hurriedly. 
The desire to look away from the paper to see if I can recite the 
material is well nigh irresistible." This 'going through it very 
^JAirriedly', which the subject speaks of, is probable a very close 
approach to recitation. 

It thus appears that in the reading series the material is handled 
more by separate items than by groups. Less effort is used to build 
up a structural whole — there is less organization of the material. 
Subjects 5 and T show in another way an advantage of recitation 



76 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

which is dependent upon better organization of the material. The 
following figures give the number of seconds for each of a number 
of repetitions in several tests. 

Subject T readhig 

15, 12, II, 12, 12, 12, 14, 13, II, 15, 16, 13, II, 9, 15, etc. 
14, 13, 10, 12, II, 15, 14, 17, 13, 13, 17, 9, 14, 13, II, etc. 

16, 10, 12, 13, 14, 12, II, 16, 14, 9, II, 12, 16, 12, II, etc. 

Recitation 
37, 45, 62, 20, 45, 12, 45, 36, 6, 50, 35, 4 
27. 5. 47, 52, 46, 8, 31, 45, 33, 12, 6 
47. 27, 53> 12, 34, 5, 34, 2, 26, 53, 35 

Subject S reading 
24, 24, 18, 24, 32, 22, 25, 34, 26, 30 
18, 14, 16, 18, 14, 20, 25, 23, 24, 19 

Recitation 
82, 90, 42, 72, 12, 87, 36, 12, etc. 
72, 80, 36, 8, 46, 90, 42, 6, 45 

In the first place it will be noted that the rates for readings are 
very uniform. The subject reads and rereads in much the same 
way, giving as we have seen about equal attention to all syllables. 
But in the case of recitations, the rates of the repetitions are varied, 
the average rate being slower with a much higher mean variation. 
The subjects were able to account for this, in part at least. Usually 
the material was divided into groups, different ones being featured 
at different times. To begin with, the first group was hit hard, 
perhaps also the last group, with the result that these two groups 
were earliest learned. When these were fairly well under control, 
attention was given to the second group, and so the learning pro- 
gressed. The variations in the total time for repetitions are due to 
the varied treatment of some of the groups. Usually a group was 
perused very slowly when it first became an object of attack and 
once having been fairly well mastered was passed over very rapidly, 
except that now and then a more lengthy and more thorough 
review might be given. 

Of special interest and importance are the very short repetitions 
of four, five, six, eight, etc. seconds which occur at various intervals, 
being more numerous near the end of the study period. The sub- 
jects reported that these amounted to very hasty reviews of the 
whole series. In the beginning they served the purpose of providing 
a better acquaintance with the material as a whole, while later on 
they usually amounted to very hasty surveys of the material already 
learned, either with or without much attention to the unlearned sylla- 
bles. They served a two-fold purpose of economizing time and of work- 
ing over the lesson as a whole. In the latter capacity they served the 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 77 

purpose of building up associations between the various groups of 
items and perfecting the organization of the whole structure. 

G. E. Miiller,* who has made an extensive study of learning 
methods, describes in the course of memorizing series of digits, non- 
sense syllables, etc., several stages in the organization and grouping 
of the material. With simultaneous presentation, the first stage is 
a 'collective apprehension' of the row of items. This stage affords 
opportunity to secure an acquaintance with the material generally 
and to observe such near-lying cues as there may be that can be 
employed in dividing up the material for further learning. A 
second stage is called 'collective successive apprehension', which 
consists of 'a speedy perusal of the individual members of the com- 
plexes with attention'.^ The result is that 'the two successive 
members of one and the same group are bound together by associa- 
tions stronger than the associations between successive members of 
different groups'. This is followed by a third stage, which consists 
of an 'inner reconstruction' of the earlier apprehended groups. 
Usually recitation is the chief constituent of the third stage. The 
subject endeavors to reproduce the material without looking at it, 
and this leads to the employment of the various kinds of aids that 
have been previously mentioned. The learner must select the 
bonds that are requisite to reproduction and exercise them until, 
once set into operation, they will run their course without external 
assistance. Of course, during the recitation, references may be 
made to the text for purposes of prompting as well as for review of 
material already partly learned. But the 'inner reconstruction' of 
the material is the important function. Kiihn observed as the most 
serious deficiency of learning by reading the almost unavoidable 
tendency to neglect many of the functions which are essential to 
recall, functions which as a rule can operate only in voluntary 
recall. He writes:^ "Therefore we come to the conclusion that 
recitation is better because it leads to a more fundamental, many- 
sided working-over ('Verarbeiten') of the material." 

The typical learner, we have seen, breaks up the material into 
smaller groups which are dealt with as units. Similar to the present 
findings, Kiihn noted that such manipulation of the material was 
more characteristic of recitation. He states: "By learning with 
recitation the construction of groups can be carried on more readily 
than through reading. Many persons say, in fact, that in really 
pure reading such a construction of groups is impossible. "'' 

1 'Zur Analyse der Gedachtnistatigkeit und des Vorstellungsverlaufes', Zeitschrift filr Psy- 
chologic, 191 1, Supplementary vol. 5, pp. 253-403. 

6 Ibid., p. 254. 

« 'IJber Einpragung durch Lesen und durch Rezitieren', Zeitschrift fiir Psychologic, 1914, 68, 
p. 443. ' Ibid., p. 440. 



78 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

The manner in which these groups are built up, the determina- 
tion of their number, size, and distribution, has already been de- 
scribed. In general, the nature of the grouping depends upon the 
kind and length of the material and upon a host of peculiarities 
which may be found within it. Great differences are also found 
among different individuals and for the same individual at different 
times. 

The value of such groupings of the material as an aid in learning 
has been pointed out by Miiller. They are in brief: 

1. Although it is impossible to grasp in one span of attention a whole list of 
items, the smaller groups can be utilized as units for attention, thus leading to 
economy of time and energy in apprehending the whole group. 

2. The factor of localization comes more eflfectively into play. One cannot 
remember the positions of each member of a series of twenty nonsense syllables, 
but he can remember the position of four or five groups, each being treated as 
a unit. 

3. Each group comes to have its own individuality and thus serves as a center 
of attack. 

4. Groupings assist rhythmical and melodic perusal. 

5. Groups as such are more interesting than a series of single items which the 
learner soon becomes familiar with, as such, and then permits attention to flag. 
The groups, as interesting problems to be mastered, arouse and direct attention. 

When the series is quite long, it is not enough that the individual 
groups should be mastered, but the series of groups must be bound 
together by additional associations. Sometimes the localization of 
the groups in visual space or numerically is sufficient, but very 
often other associative or mnemonic aids are employed. 

Our previous analysis of the learning process would fit very 
nicely into Miiller's scheme of three stages. That the reading 
method should be employed to some extent in the beginning has 
been pointed out by Miiller — in fact, the first two stages are entirely 
dependent upon reading. The third stage of 'inner reconstruction' 
is, as its name implies, primarily a stage of attempted recitation. 

To limit the learner entirely to the reading method precludes 
the possibilities of the active stage of 'inner reconstruction' and 
thus greatly hampers the learning. The natural tendency of the 
learner to resort to this latter method of study is shown in the oft 
repeated statement that the desire to do so was 'well nigh irresist- 
able' and the like. Most subjects can, to varied degrees, continue 
to learn by reading, but there are some, perhaps, who can advance 
only to a limited extent. Kiihn found, ^ in fact, that after a certain 
number, additional readings may prove not only to be of no value 
for imprinting, but may be positively harmful. For example, one 
subject (Got.) required after 

»0p. cit., p. 477. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 79 

40 readings, 17 additional recitations to learn 

25 readings, 9 additional recitations to learn 

12 readings, 6 additional recitations to learn 

2 readings, 5 additional recitations to learn 

Similar results were found for three other subjects. Such tests, 
however, have been tried with several subjects in the present study, 
but in no case were such negative results found, although two sub- 
jects were found who were unable by reading alone to completely 
master a long series of nonsense syllables. 

HELPS MORE CONS TA NT AND MORE NATURAL IN RECITATION 

It was pointed out earlier that recitation leads more successfully 
to the empl o yment of various sorts of aids, such as modulations of 
the voic e, rhythms, pauses, meaningful associ ations, and the like. 
An additional point very often reported is that such aids not only 
^ome into play more rea dily in recitation but that they are more 
consta nt- During reading, some report that they emphasize now 
one syllable, now another; they now use one rhythm, later another; 
the sight of the word suggests now one association, later another. 
In recitation, when once adopted, the aids are more constant. This 
is partly due to the fact that most learners do not like to refer to 
the text unless it is absolutely necessary, and since recall is entirely 
dependent upon the use of some association, a connection once 
initiated is likely to be invariably employed. During reading, 
since the syllable in each case is present to the eye, the previously 
observed association, being less essential, is not so deeply impressed; 
other connections, depending upon the attitude of the subject at 
the moment, are likely to overrule it with the result that a new 
association is substituted. This, in essence, is what many report: 
"It is hard to keep my mind on the work in reading. Different 
influences seem to come in continually that give the material a new 
look. First a syllable means one thing and later I associated it 
with something else." Subject Tr says: "I first thought oi fab as 
part of fable, wab as Weber, etc., but it was often difficult to remem- 
ber some of them because I didn't have to depend upon them." A 
similar situation was found in the case of many subjects by Kiihn, 
who concluded:^ "The helps in recitation seem to be more natural, 
while in reading they appear manifold and artificial." 

TESTING THE LEARNING 

In an earlier section , evidence was fou nd that there was a greate r 

, certaint y as t o wha t was known when recitation was emploved in 

the learning. This, of course, is not only true at the completion of 

' op. cit., p. 440. 



8o RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

the learning but during the various stages. In addition to the ob- 
jective evidence already presented (p. 71 f.) are the reports of manj'^ 
subjects that when they read only, they are not at all certain how 
much of the material is known or how well it is known. They may 
have a general feeling that they can recite a certain part of the 
material, but they cannot be sure until they have tried. The 
recitation, of course, constitutes the test. 

One of the values of recitation is that it gives exact knowledge of 
the results that are being produced and serves to throw into relief 
the efficacy of the different aids that are being employed as a means 
to learning the lesson. Recitation leads more surely to the selection 
and repetition of the desirable bonds and to the elimination of the 
unfit. In other types of learning, Judd has shown that knowledge 
of results of practice is essential to improvement. ^° He found that 
practice in locating the continuation of sloped lines, part of which 
was concealed from the subject, produced no improvement when 
the results of the practice were not disclosed, but improvement 
immediately resulted when the subject was permitted to view 
briefly the results of his efforts. 

In an earlier section (see p. 71 f.) it was found that recitation 
leads not only to better localization of the syllables but it also 
leads to a more accurate knowledge of the correctness of the posi- 
tion of syllables. In learning by recitation, out of 127 judgments 
of 'correct in position' but two were wrong, while in the reading 
series nine out of sixty-eight such judgments were wrong. 

In order to find if there is a greater certainty with respect to the 
form of the syllables without regard to their position, another 
similar experiment was made. Eleven graduate students acted as 
subjects in two tests of five minutes each, one by the reading method 
and one by the recitation method. Half of the subjects took the 
former and half the latter test first, the order being reversed for 
the second test. Table XXXIX gives the results. 

In the first place, a greater number of syllables are written down 
after the recitation test than after the reading test (twelve and two- 
tenths as compared to eight). The absolute number judged correct 
in the recitation series is about twice the number so judged in the 
reading series, eleven and three-tenths as compared to six syllables. 
Likewise, the number of syllables that were actually correct was 
about twice as great for the method including recitation, eleven and 
four-tenths as compared to five and fifty-four one-hundredths. Of 
the total number of syllables written down in the reading series 
seventy-five per cent, were judged to be correct, while in the recita- 

•" 'Practice without Knowledge of Results', Psychology Review Monographs, 1905, 7, pp. 
185-198. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



8i 



tion series ninety-two and six- tenths per cent, were judged to be 
correct. That is to say, there was a greater assurance of correctness 
when the learning involved recitation. Moreover, in the recitation 
tests, of those written down ninety-three and four-tenths per cent, 
were actually correct as compared to sixty-nine and two-tenths per 
cent, for the reading series, indicating again that there is less 
certainty about the knowledge of results during reading. It should 
be noted that in the reading series there is a considerable discrep- 



TABLE XXXIX 

Results given in number of syllables correct in form without regard to position 





After 


five minutes reading 


After five minutes recitation 


Subject 


Number 
written 


Number 
judged 


Number 

actually 


Number 
written 


Number 
judged 


Number 
actually 






correct 


corre.ct 




correct 


correct 


At. 


13 


13 


II 


16 


15 


145 


Rs. 


8 


8 


6 


16 


16 


16 


Py. 


9 


7 


7 


10 


9 


9-5 


Tr. 


7 


5 


5 


15 


14 


14 


Gl. 


8 


4 


5 


10 


10 


10 


Mn. 


II 


6 


7 


12 


10 


10 


An. 


8 


4 


5 


12 


II 


II 


E. M. 


5 


4 


4 


10 


9 


9 


J. M. 


7 


6 


4 


II 


9 


10 


Sn. 


7 


5 


4 


16 


16 


16 


Sa. 


5 


4 


3 


7 


6 


6 


Average 


S.o 


6.0 


5-54 


12.2 


II-3 


II. 4 


P. E. 


1-4 


1-5 


1-3 


2.0 


2.3 


2.2 


Per cent, of number 














written 




75-0 


69.2 




92.6 


93-4 


Per cent, of number 














judged correct 






92.3 






100. 



ancy between the number of syllables 'judged correct' and the 
number 'actually correct'; while for the recitation method these 
two figures are almost identical. This means that after you have 
studied a lesson by the recitation method you are practically certain 
how well you know it, but after you have studied by reading you 
are not only uncertain about your knowledge but your honest 
opinion is likely to be an overestimation of your attainment. A 
closer examination of the table, however, will reveal the fact that 
individuals differ in this respect. Under the reading method, three 
people correctly estimate their knowledge {i. e., the number of 
syllables 'judged correct' equals the number 'actually correct') ; 



82 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



five people overestimate their knowledge; while three underestimate 
their knowledge. Confronted by this general uncertainty of results, 
some subjects are likely to be very conservative in their judgments 
and others much less so, the general result being an overestimation 
of attainment. 

In the case of the recitation series, eight subjects correctly esti- 
mate their knowledge, while one overestimates and two under- 
estimate their knowledge. The sum of the differences between the 
number 'actually correct' and the number 'judged correct' is two 
syllables for the recitation series and eleven for the reading series. 

On the whole then, learning by reading makes it very difficult 
to estimate one's attainment, while learning through recitation 
leads to very accurate knowledge of results. This should be thought 
of in connection with the fact that in our tests the amount learned 
by recitation is about twice as great, a fact which can only emphasize 
the greater accuracy in that case. Other things being equal , we should 
expect twice as many errors of judgment in the recitation results. 

Some evidence can be obtained from the children's data to 
indicate a similar result. From the data of several classes was 
computed the total number of syllables written down, and the 
total number of syllables that were correct in form. From the 
various methods of study including recitation, certain ones were 
chosen in order to make practice effects, etc., balance up with the 
reading series. The following is a sample result, based on forty 
pupils of the sixth grade. 



Number of syllables 
Relative number 



Reading 
Written down Correct 



7. 12 
1 00.0 



4-5 

63.2 



Recitation 
Written down Correct 



II . 12 

100. 



9.06 
51.4 



The results show a clear superiority in favor of the recitation 
method of learning. 

A similar result was found with sense material, a sample of 
which follows, showing in the case of thirty-nine eighth-grade 
pupils the number of details of facts written and the number 
correct. 





Reading 
Written down Correct 


Recitation 
Written down Correct 


Number of facts 
Relative number 


27.2 
100. 


22.6 
83.1 


28.7 
100. 


26.1 
90.9 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 83 

Objective data, thus, support the introspective opinion, previ- 
ously given, that one has better knowledge of results in learning by 
recitation and that this is an aid in learning. Some of the concrete 
ways in which this knowledge may be of assistance may be briefly 
considered. 

First: There is a feeling of satisfyingness in the certainty of 
progress, in knowing that headway is actually being made. Con- 
versely, it is annoying to be uncertain whether the study is bring- 
ing returns. The satisfyingness results in better attention and 
better application to the work, while annoyingness is distracting 
and hampers learning. Subject An gives a typical report: "It 
[reading] was discouraging because I did not feel that I was making 
much progress during the last part of it. There was no way to tell." 

Second: A certain saving of energy may result from knowing what 
parts of the material are known and what are not known, a. Over- 
learning of certain portions may be prevented. Usually the first 
and last syllables are first learned and when the subject knows that 
these are mastered, they can be passed over hastily in subsequent 
perusals, a very slight amount of review being sufficient to keep 
them intact. Subject Rs says: "I saved time during recitation by 
skipping hurriedly over the words I already knew." b. An oppor- 
tunity is afTorded to direct special attention to those portions that 
are still unlearned. Subjects report that certain syllables offer 
special difficulty which is often not suspected until they endeavor 
to recite, c. The two factors together, easing down on familiar 
or learned portions and attending more intensely to unfamiliar or 
especially difficult portions, result in a saving of energy in the long 
run. It makes the work more absorbing, and also makes possible 
short periods of relaxation of attention or breathing spells, which 
may result in a rebound of energy for learning the more obstinate 
portions. 

ERRONEOUS RECALL 

It is obvious that an attempted recitation may result not only 
in a failure to recall a certain syllable, but it may also result in 
erroneous recall, neither of which could occur during reading in the 
strict sense. If the errors are too numerous or if they are not dis- 
covered in the case of recall, they become a harmful rather than a 
beneficial factor in learning. Failures to recall are very frequent in 
some cases in which the recitation is introduced too early, with the 
result that time is frequently lost in unfruitful endeavor to recall 
items that are not as yet sufficiently fixed in mind. Erroneous 
recalls, under the same conditions, are also frequent, but they sel- 
dom occur without some feeling or indication of incorrectness. 



84 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

Many subjects report that they profit much by these mistakes. 
Noting and correcting an error helps to fix the proper item in 
mind; it receives better attention at that moment and will receive 
special attention on the next repetition. Subject Rs said as a 
sample concerning a test in which recitation was begun after five 
minutes' reading: "Twice I failed on piw, each time saying poy 
[evidently confused with soy which followed]. But after twice cor- 
recting it, I had it so well in mind that I will probably remember it 
longer than any other in the series." 

In connection with the matter of unsuccessful and erroneous 
recall, Katzaroff pointed out, as an advantage of recitation, a kind 
of growing satisfyingness in the task. Successful recall is satisfying 
and failure is annoying. As we proceed, the proportion of satisfy- 
ingness becomes steadily greater, toning up the learner and enabling 
him to keep up interest and application in spite of growing fatigue. 
He states :^^ "The learner is active, he has to seek, he rejoices when 
he has found and is irritated at the syllables which evade his call. 
Here crowd sentiments of affection for certain syllables, of antipathy 
for others, which contribute to enrich the associative bonds and 
favor conservation and recall." One of the workers in the present 
study similarly said: "In reading, it is the last part of the test that 
is most wearisome, but in recitation, it becomes almost a pleasure 
as I approach a mastery of the whole bunch of words." 

UNINTENTIONAL RECITATION DURING THE READING TESTS 

A great many of the subjects found it difficult to resist their 
natural tendency to recite, during the reading series; in fact, 
the reading was nearly always combined with more or less recall 
of an unintentional, practically unavoidable sort. The effort to 
avoid reciting acted as a positive disturbance and source of annoy- 
ance, thus distracting attention and consuming energy to no pur- 
pose. Subject Md speaking of the reading method said: "Very 
difficult and disagreeable, because I was constantly inhibiting the 
tendency to test what I had been trying to learn." 

SATISFYINGNESS AND ANNOYINGNESS IN READING AND RECITATION 

According to the introspections of many adult subjects and the 
reports of many school children, one conspicuous difference between 
reading and recitation lies in the greater satisfyingness of the latter. 
That the matter of satisfyingness and annoyingness of mental 
work is important has been emphasized by Meumann.^^ "Xhe emo- 
tional condition in which we find ourselves during the performance 

» op. cit., p. 257. 

'2 The Psychology of Learning, p. 281. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



85 



of a mental task is of profound importance for the accomplishment 
of the task. In general, it may be said that an emotion of pleasant- 
ness facilitates the function of memory, and that unpleasantness 
has a very detrimental effect upon memory." Thorndike is more 
cautious :i^ "No one probably doubts that interest in the exercise 
of a function favors improvement at it," and "such statements 
appeal to our common sense as probably true, though they have 
not been fully verified." 

It shall be our purpose, first, to inquire as to what differences 
appear between recitation and reading as producers of satisfying- 
ness and annoyingness, and then to consider briefly in what way or 
by means of what minor functions these effects are brought about. 

That there is greater satisfyingness in studying by the recitation 
method is indicated by the witness of nearly every subject, child or 
adult. At the close of the experiments with the school children 
they were asked to state what method of learning they liked best. 
For ease of selection the cases considered were three: one in which 
they read all the time, one in which they read about half of the 
time, and another in which they recited nearly all the time. The 
following table gives the distribution of opinion. 

With nonsense material 





All reading 


Half and half 


Mostly recitation 


Grade eight 
Grade six 


3 
2 


2 
10 


29 

27 



Sense material 



Grade eight 
Grade six 




20 

28 



It is clear that the children strongly preferred the methods in 
which recitation was included. 

The reasons for their preferences are varied and not very specific. 
Such statements as, "It isn't such hard work," "I learn better that 
way," were common. Some explained their preferences as follows: 
"I knew I was learning them when I recited"; "I get so tired when 
I read"; "When I recite, it's fun to see if I can say more every time 
than I ever did before." 

The introspective accounts of adults are even more emphatic. 
Among the subjects listed in Table XXXIII, fourteen reported that 

^> Educational Psychology, vol. II, p. 219. 



86 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

Method Three (two minutes reading and eight minutes recitation) 
was most satisfying, one that Method Two (half and half) was 
most natural and satisfying, and all reported that Method One (all 
reading) was least so. In fact, most of them report that the last 
four or five minutes in the reading test were positively 'annoying', 
'monotonous', 'tiresome', 'very fatiguing', etc. Subject Hn 
declared: "Without a doubt, trying to learn a series of nonsense 
syllables in this way is the most monotonous work I have ever done. 
The syllables came to have absolutely no connection or association, 
and the typewritten letters became, after four or five minutes, so 
many stupid hieroglyphics." 

Many of the actual ways through which reading becomes annoy- 
ing and recitation satisfying have already been indicated, and they 
will receive but brief mention here. a. There is satisfaction in 
the realization that progress is actually being made. We have seen 
earlier that this is the case during recitation. Conversely, it is 
annoying to be uncertain of one's progress in the learning, b. Reci- 
tation is satisfying because it offers the learner more freedom 
to employ such aids, and work with such methods, as he may 
desire. Reading becomes annoying because it hinders or prohibits 
the exercise of many of the desired functions, c. The facts of a 
and b taken together explain other sources of satisfyingness in reci- 
tation. For example, it is satisfying, as Katzaroff pointed out, to 
attack portions of the lesson that offer special difficulties — difficul- 
ties that are often not realized until one begins to recite. Again, 
the opportunity that recitation affords the learner to ease off on 
familiar portions, and strike hard at difficult portions, seems to be 
a good remedy for boredom and fatigue, d. Annoyingness attends 
the constant effort exerted by many in resisting the natural 
tendency to recite during the reading series. 

IS THERE GREATER ACTIVITY IN RECITATION THAN IN READING? 

The early investigators on this subject gave great emphasis to 
the conclusion that recitation, as compared to learning by reading, 
produced a greater activity on part of the learner, and to this greater 
expenditure of energy was attributed in large measure the better 
results obtained. For example Katzaroff says:i* "In the readings, 
the subject is passive, calm, indifferent; in recitation he is active." 

The introspections and observations from the present work do 
not lead to exactly this conclusion. The distinction seems to be 
one of kind rather than one of quantity. It appears that recitation 
does not always, in fact, does not generally result in greater activity, 
effort, or expenditure of energy on part of the learner, but the indica- 

" op. cU., p. 257. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 87 

tions are that the energy is expended in a different way. Certainly 
the conscientious learner by the reading method is not 'calm and 
indifferent'. An apparent, but certainly not a real lack of activity 
is indicated by the already mentioned fact that many of the motor 
functions such as articulation, accentuation, the use of rhythm, etc., 
are much less prominent in reading. In the next section, however, 
it will be seen that the subjects declare that every internal symp- 
tom indicates that reading is more consuming of energy than reci- 
tation. 

FATIGUE EFFECTS OF READING AND RECITATION 

Other things being equal, we should expect, were it true that 
recitation results in greater activity and expenditure of energy than 
reading, that it would also be more fatiguing. Unfortunately, in 
this study, we have no indisputable measure of fatigue, but it never- 
theless appears, in so far as one is able by a subjective judgment to 
estimate fatigue, that recitation is much less fatiguing. The findings 
reported in the section on the satisfyingness and annoyingness 
of the two methods bear strongly on this point. In so far as feelings 
of fatigue, boredom, monotony, and the like are indices of real 
fatigue, there can be no doubt that recitation is less fatiguing than 
learning by reading. Whether or not they are measures of real 
fatigue, they are at least very important from the point of view of 
work in the school-room. In the face of such statements as those 
following, there can be no doubt that recitation is to be preferred 
to learning by reading in this respect. Subject Hn: "Reading is 
the most monotonous work I have ever done." Subject Dn: 
"Reading is most fatiguing because there is no variation." Subject 
Fx: "Reading most fatiguing — monotonous — took all my energy 
to keep up interest." Subject Sn: "This method very tiresome — 
effort seemed to be fruitless." Subject Mk: "Very tiresome and 
disagreeable." On the other hand, learning by recitation may, as 
Subject Py said, "be almost a pleasure," or, as Subject Mk states, 
"much more satisfying," or, as Subject Rs says, "not so bad as 
reading, that's certain." 

Subjects also report that the after-effects of learning by reading 
are greater than learning by recitation. Subject Bn reports: "I 
couldn't apply myself to work for an hour after the experiment.' 
Subject T: "I felt tired all the rest of the afternoon." 

From a practical point of view, it should also be considered that 
the fatigue, based on the amount learned, rather than the time 
spent, would be relatively very much greater in the case of learning 
by reading. The subjects report that they are very much less 
fatigued by ten minutes of study by recitation than by ten minutes 



88 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

study by reading, yet they have learned twice as much. If the study 
by reading were continued until the amount learned was equal to 
that learned by the recitation method, the fatiguing effects of the 
former would doubtless be still more marked. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF READING 
AND RECITATION AS FUNCTIONS IN THE LEARNING PROCESS 

Our analysis of learning has shown the memorization of any 
m.aterial, especially of nonsense material, to be a complex process 
involving the formation of a host of bonds. It has appeared, more- 
over, that many, in fact, most of these bonds can be properly formed 
only by means of recitation. Our subjects have reported that it 
was 'dif^cult', 'unnatural', 'annoying', 'fatiguing', or 'impos- 
sible' to establish most of the essential bonds during reading. 
Efforts to learn the material by rote, to memorize it mechanically 
or by means of 'visual imprinting' during a series of readings 
proved to be futile. Memorization was possible only by means of 
establishing bonds between items and their pronunciation, sound, 
or look : between items and accents, pauses, or elements of a rhythm ; 
between items and their position in a series ; between an item and 
other items which it may be considered a part of, similar to, or 
somehow related to and the like, as well as additional bonds between 
characteristics of successive groups of items. We have found that 
it is to the formation of just these bonds that recitation leads, and 
that it is just these functions that it is difficult or impossible to 
exercise adequately during reading in its pure form. Consequently 
it seems to be a justifiable conclusion that complete learning is 
possible only by means of some form of recitation. Pure reading 
alone will scarcely enable one to completely learn a lesson which 
exceeds the memory span by any considerable length, yet it serves 
an important function in the learning process as we have seen. 

The considerations of the present chapter have shown that read- 
ing and recitation are very broad functions made up of many minor 
ones. Economical learning consists not only in selecting and exer- 
cising those more minute functions which are essential and elimi- 
nating those that are valueless, but also in exercising them in 
proper sequence and each for an optimum time. It will be neces- 
sary here to review but briefly some of the essential functions, 
indicating to which of the two broader functions they belong and 
the order in which they are customarily exercised. 

The first stage of the learning consists, as we have seen, in looking 
over the whole material with the purpose of obtaining an idea of 
its general make-up, noting the individual items in the group, 
getting the pronunciation or look or sound of the terms to some 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 89 

degree, and noting outstanding 'aids' which may be employed in 
breaking up the material to further the learning. Much may be 
done in this stage to determine upon a method of attack. The 
length of the material, its apparent difficulty, its peculiarities, the 
possibilities for rhythmical division, and its ready-made associations 
are considered. The material may be thus perused for several times 
until the reader feels 'familiar' with it and a method of procedure 
is tentatively adopted. This stage is the reading stage, includ- 
ing what Miiller has termed the stages of 'collective' and 'suc- 
cessive apprehension'. That the functions of reading are 
essential and satisfying here has been indicated by all intro- 
spective data. 

The optimum duration of this stage depends upon many factors, 
such as the length and difficulty of the material, the age, training 
and capacity of the learner, and the like. These considerations will 
be taken up on a later page. 

Following this stage, new functions may be introduced and the 
original functions may be employed in a somewhat different manner. 
This is the stage of recitation. It consists essentially in the final 
selection of the bonds requisite to recall and the exercise of these 
bonds until they are firmly established. What these bonds are, it 
was the purpose of the preceding sections of this chapter to point 
out. Thus it appears that memorizing is in no essential way differ- 
ent from any other form of learning. The bonds selected are 
exercised, those found to be unfit are eliminated, and new bonds 
are added as the case demands, the period of practice being con- 
tinued until, once initiated, the series of desired responses runs ofif 
in the proper order. 

Like other processes of learning memorizing may be explained in 
physiological terms. An adequate explanation of this sort would 
make the difference between the functions of reading and recitation 
more intelligible. The learning of a series of nonsense syllables, 
like the formation of any habit, involves two things: a sensori- 
motor response or the formation of a bond between a situation and 
a particular response, and a sequential connection between the 
various situation-response bonds in serial order.^^ The following 
diagrams illustrate in a very rough way, what physiological actioHS 
and changes are involved in the learning of a series of nonsense 
syllables or any other material. 

'5 A standard treatise in English upon the physiological aspects of learning is Ladd and 
Woodworth, Physiological Psychology, New York, 1911. For an abbreviated but excellent account, 
see also Thorndike, E. L., Educational Psychology, New York 1913, vol. i, chapter XIV. The 
illustrations used in the present article are similar in some respects to those employed by Bair to 
explain the development in skill in typewriting. Compare 'The Practice Curve', Psychological 
Revie'iV Monographs 1902, No. 19, pp. 1-70. 



90 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 



In Figures 4, 5, and 6, S, S \ S -, — represent the stimuli, that is, 
the sight of the syllables, occurring in serial order as they would in 
reading. These stimuli are conducted to the sensory centers A, A^ 
A^,— , which discharge respectively into the higher centers B, B \ 
B 2 — , and these cells in turn discharge into M, M ^ M ^ — , the 
effectors which produce the motor responses of writing or speaking 
the syllables. 

Let us consider a case of pure reading; p^^re in the sense of being 
entirely devoid of all elements of recall, waiving for the moment 



/V' ./f^ j.f»^ 




5' Q- i^ 

Fig. 4 — 'Pure' reading. 




Fig. 5 — Reading with formation 
of associations. 



[,/ir-^ 1 n^ 




Fig. 6 — Recitation. 



the question of whether such reading actually exists. Pttre reading 
would consist in the exercise of bonds S A B M, S ^A^B ^M \ etc., 
as distinct units. The more often these bonds are exercised, the 
more definite becomes the connections and the more automatic 
the response. But it is obvious that however firmly these bonds 
become fixed, they cannot of themselves make possible voluntary 
recall, since S, S \ S ^, — , (the sight of the syllables being learned) 
is an essential link in the process. 

Figure 6 illustrates roughly the requirements for voluntary re- 
call. In this case the expression of the syllables (designated as 
M, M', M-, — ,) are produced in the absence of the stimuli, S, S^ 
S^, — , of the visible words. What is required here is that bonds 
should have been formed between the various higher units. Con- 
nections between B and B\ M and B\ or both, must be established. 
The result is that once the series is started, the physiological pro- 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 9 1 

cesses which produce the first syllable act as the stimuli for the pro- 
duction of the processes which bring about the response of the 
second syllable and so on. 

Perhaps few would doubt that this illustration would account, in 
a very rough way, for the process of recall, but many might be 
unwilling to admit that Figure 4 is a correct representation of the 
processes involved in reading. The doctrine of association by con- 
tiguity might insist that the mere repetition of the syllables one 
after another would result in the establishment of bonds between 
them. Bair,^^ consequent to his study of the development of skill 
in typewriting, concluded, although he really gave very little weight 
to it, that "connections are formed between cells that for a number 
of times have been stimulated or discharged — in succession," 
Woodworth has pointed out the inadequacy of this doctrine. To 
quote :^^ "contiguity is a necessary condition of association. But 
is it a sufficient condition? There is little in the experimental work 
on memory to indicate that it is sufficient, and much to indicate 
that it is not usually depended on to accomplish results. The 
things to be connected must be together, in order to arouse the 
reaction connecting them; but, unless they arouse some such 
reaction, they do not become connected, except it be very weakly." 
Professor Woodworth has shown some convincing experimental 
evidence ^^ in support of his view and doubtless much more could 
be discovered by search through studies already in print, ^^ but 
space will not permit us to go into the matter here. 

In attempting to learn by reading, the subject does not rely 
entirely upon mere repetition of the syllables — upon the alleged 
efficacy of contiguity — alone, but in most cases, tries to form the 
serial associations upon which he must rely to recall the series 
when the time comes. Why are these bonds not definitely formed? 
The reason is that the presence of the printed words (5, S\ 5-, etc.) 
makes it so unessential, during reading, to connect B with B^, or 
M with B^, that the learner's purpose to strengthen these bonds is 
defeated. Since, according to prescription, the learner must, 

i^Op. cit., p. 51- 

1' 'A Revision of Imageless Tliought', Psychological Review, 1915, 22, pp. 1-27, especially 
pp. 16-22. 

'8 It may be well to give the following sample test, in the words of the author. "I read a list 
of twenty pairs of unrelated words to a group of sixteen subjects, instructing them beforehand to 
learn the pairs so as to be able to respond with the second of each pair when the first should be given 
as a stimulus. But, after reading the list three times, I told them that they should, if possible, 
give also the first word of the following pair on getting the second word of the preceding pair as a 
stimulus. — The results were most definite: the second members of the pairs were correctly recalled 
in seventy-four per cent, of all cases, but the first members were recalled in only seven per cent, 
of the cases." 'A Revision of Imageless Thought'. Ibid., p. 18. 

19 For example, see Hollingworth, H. L. 'Characteristic Differences between Recall and Recog- 
nition', American Journal Psychology, 1913. 24, pp. 532-544- Also 'The Influence of Caffein on 
Efficiency', Archives of Psychology, 1912, No. 22, p. 17. 



92 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

on completing the series S A B M, then read S\ the connections 
S^ A^ B^ M^ being by previous practice better estabhshed, are 
thrown into action before the incipient bonds B-B^, M-B^, are 
awakened. The response follows directly upon the stimulus pro- 
voked by seeing the word. 

How is it possible, then, as shown by our quantitative results 
given earlier, that some memorization does result from reading? 
In all probability pure reading is a fiction; recall, to some degree, 
being always present. Nearly all subjects were able, introspectively, 
to discern this fact. Figure 5 shows, roughly, the physiology of 
this situation. The dotted lines S-A, S^-A^, etc., indicate that 
these bonds between the sight of the word and its expression are 
more feebly exercised; are less depended upon than is the case in 
Figure 4, which illustrates the hypothetical pure reading. The 
manner in which the items (S^, etc.) are required to play a minor 
role are various. Sometimes the subject pauses between the 
series, S A B M and S^ A^ B^ M\ etc., thus permitting the bonds 
B-B\ M-B^, etc., to be thrown into action before S^ is observed. 
That is to say, the subject anticipates the next word in the series, 
more or less, before he reads it. Sometimes the syllables are read 
in a hazy, inattentive way, in which case the subject relies partly 
upon the exercise of the serial bonds as well as upon the objective 
stimulus of the printed word. In these and other ways, actual 
reading departs from pure reading and in consequence leads more 
effectively to memorization. In short, the actual reading which 
the subject practices is a sort of hybrid between the hypothetical 
pure reading and recitation. 

A more accurate picture of the anatomical substrata of memoriz- 
ing would undoubtedly be much more complex than our simple dia- 
grams. As we have seen, consciousness of the meaning and form 
of the material is a prominent factor in learning. Consequently, 
the diagram should contain at least a symbolic representation of 
the centers upon which, presumably, such consciousness depends. 
Thus, in Figure 7, P, a 'psychic' center may be added, in which 
elaborations of the sensory data take place.-" Probably in learning 
a passage, as well as during the recall for some time, P is called into 
activity, discharging into B. As practice continues, in all likeli- 
hood, pathway S A B M becomes relatively more and more per- 
meable, until finally conduction through A P B ceases almost 
entirely — the process becomes practically unattended by conscious- 
ness of meaning. To illustrate this condition for reading (illus- 

2" For an account of such distribution of functions, see Ladd and Woodworth, Physiological 
Psychology, chapters IX and X. The 'association' or 'psychic' areas are given special treatment 
on pp. 251-263. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 93 

trated by Figure 7) we may repeat the statement of one of our 
subjects: "The typewritten letters became, after four or five min- 
utes, so many stupid hieroglyphics." 

In recitation also, the 'psychic' center P is involved. Figure 8 
is micrely a suggestion of the possible connections of this center 
with others. P may have connections with B^, as well as with P^, 
which in turn, is connected with B^ through which the discharge 
into the organ of expression takes place. If now we consider that 
each of these possible connections indicated by a straight line in 
the figure is a representation of hundreds, perhaps thousands of 
different neurones that may be employed, the complexity of the 





^c^-:__^^^._.^^-._.>3 



Fig. 7 — Reading with awareness Fig. 8 — Recitation with awareness 

of meaning. of meaning. 

neural substrate involved in learning is suggested. But recitation 
of the series of syllables may become short-circuited to a nearly 
mechanical activity, such that once initiated, the series of responses 
occurs automatically while attention is occupied with other matters. 
This may be typified by considering that the connections through 
P and P^ etc., and perhaps even the connections B-B^, etc., drop 
out, so that the connection of M with B^, which leads directly to 
M^, is so close that once the series of responses is started, each 
follows its predecessor with mechanical precision. 

Recitation, in brief, differs from reading physiologically by the 
fact that it selects and exercises the bonds upon which the estab- 
lished habit depends, while reading calls into action some bonds 
that are not strictly needed for recall, omits some that are requisite, 
and does not so well exercise the remaining few, needed for recall. 
Recitation is for memorizing what practice is for other habits.^' 
The physiological basis is the same. 

21 Such a physiological explanation, for example, has been worked out in detail by J. H. Bair 
for typewriting. See 'The Practice Curve', Psychological Review Monographs, 1902, No. 19, 
pp. 1-70. 



94 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

Some of the differences between reading and recitation, which 
appeared from the introspective analysis of the two functions, may 
appear with more clarity when considered from the physiological 
side. For example, many subjects reported that the associative 
aids adopted during recitation were more constantly employed than 
those adopted during reading. Recitation results in the continued 
exercise of particular bonds, as we have seen, and of course each 
repetition strengthens those bonds, with the result that the nervous 
impulse once initiated flows along the most frequently traversed 
pathway. In reading, none of the serial bonds receives adequate 
exercise, with the result that none has a great advantage over any 
other, and now one, now another pathway may be traversed. 

Annoyingness and fatigue in the case of prolonged reading may 
be considered as largely due to a check placed in the way of the 
exercise of the bonds desired. "When any conduction unit is in 
readiness to conduct, for it to do so is satisfying. When any con- 
duction unit is not ready to conduct, for it to do so is annoying. 
When any conduction unit is in readiness to conduct, for it not 
to do so is annoying. "22 After the preliminary exercise of the 
conduction units SAB M, further exercise of that bond becomes 
annoying; the serial bonds are then ready to conduct. For them 
to do so, under the conditions specified in reading, is practically 
impossible, because the stimuli S, S^, S'\ etc., by virtue of their 
firmer establishment, cause the conduction to take the habitual 
course, S A B M, etc. 

Space will not permit further illustrations of this sort. By way 
of summary of this section, it is only necessary to repeat that read- 
ing and recitation are relatively distinct yet essential functions of 
the learning process. Each has its proper place, and as we have seen, 
introducing recitation too early or withholding it too long retards 
learning. The important matter is to determine the optimum point 
at which to introduce it, a matter which will receive consideration 
in the following section. 

THE OPTIMUM TIME AT WHICH TO INTRODUCE RECITATION 

The quantitative results presented in Chapter IV indicated that 
the optimum time at which to introduce recitation varied somewhat 
according to the age and training of the different groups of school 
children, and the data obtained from adults pointed to differences 
among individuals of approximately the same age and training. It 
is obvious that the determination of the optimum time at which to 
introduce recitation is a most important matter for purposes of 
economizing time and energy in learning. That the quantitative 

'2 Thorndike, E. L., Educational Psychology, vol. II, pp. 1-2. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 95 

determination of the best combinations of reading and recitation 
made in the present study apply only to the particular conditions 
here employed, has already been pointed out. The optimum time 
for the beginning of recitation will doubtless vary not only according 
to the age, training, and capacity of the learner but also according 
to the kind of material, the length of the lesson, and the purpose in 
view, i. e., whether the lesson is to be learned verbatim, whether the 
substance without the exact form is to be reproduced, or whether a 
less definite mastery is all that is desired. Consequently, a quanti- 
tatively precise rule cannot be made. 

The present study, however, has produced some results that are 
suggestive. In general, all the evidence, quantitative, introspective, 
and interpretative seems to imply that recitation should be intro- 
duced early. Only a very small percentage of the total time required 
to learn should be devoted to reading. However, it seems to be a 
natural tendency of many adult subjects to make too early an 
attempt at recitation. Some of the reasons for the disadvantageous 
effect of introducing recitation may be pointed out. First, The 
bonds between the words and syllables and their correct pronuncia- 
tion are not sufficiently well formed to permit successful recitation. 
Second, The advantageous effect of a preliminary determination of 
a line of attack is foregone in whole or part. Third, The amount 
of data that can be recalled at so early a moment is insufficient. 
The learner is likely to waste time in fruitless endeavor to recall 
syllables that are simply not as yet forthcoming. Fourth, Too much 
time is wasted looking on and off the text, 'finding the place' and 
the like. Fifth, Too frequent failures in attempted recalls break 
attention and may develop an unpleasant attitude on part of the 
subject. Sixth, Too many erroneous recalls may be made. When 
the learner has such slight acquaintance with the material as a 
whole, errors once made are likely to be repeated. Later these 
undesirable bonds must be broken down before the correct bonds 
can be formed. 

Just as introducing the recitation too early has a deleterious 
effect, so does introducing it too late retard learning. The abundant 
quantitative evidence for this has been presented in Chapter IV. 

The optimum combination of the two functions can be best 
expressed in this way. Reading should be continued until the 
learner is fairly familiar with the material as a whole and with the 
items of which it is composed. The learner should have decided 
meanwhile upon his general method of attack. Enough of the 
material should be clearly in mind so that the learner's first attempts 
at recall will meet with some success. Just how much is enough 
will depend largely upon the learner. As a guiding principle one 



96 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

may consider that the first few recitations should not result in too 
great a distortion of the material, nor should it cause a waste of 
time in fruitless endeavor to recall. The capacity of the learner to 
quickly judge the status of his knowledge is of prime importance; 
he should be able to know at once whether continued effort to recall 
this particular syllable will end in success or not, and in the latter 
case time should not be wasted before reference to the text is made. 
The early stages of learning will thus employ both reading and reci- 
tation, the relative amount of the former decreasing as the learning 
progresses. Economical learning would consist, in part, in employ- 
ing recitation, after it is once introduced, to the full, coupled with 
the capacity to speedily resort to reading where it is essential. 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RECITATION IN LEARNING NONSENSE 
MATERIAL AS COMPARED TO LEARNING SENSE MATERIAL 

The quantitative results of Chapter IV seemed to indicate two 
things: First, that the optimum time for introducing recitation was 
considerably earlier for nonsense than for sense material; and 
Second, that recitation seemed to be a more fruitful method of 
study in the case of nonsense material than in the case of sense 
material. 

The first result is apparent rather than real. While it is true that 
recitation introduced very early produced richer returns for non- 
sense than for sense material, this should be considered in connec- 
tion with the fact that the amount of material forming the lesson in 
the former case is but a small fraction of that used in the latter. Yet 
the amount of material should be considered only in connection 
with the difficulty of the material. While the nonsense material 
was much less in amount, it was very much more difficult to learn. 
A further consideration of this point is unnecessary since the factors 
which influence the introduction of recitation, just considered, are 
the same in either case. 

The point with regard to the value of recitation as dependent 
upon the kind of material is important and demands further 
consideration. 

The results have shown clearly that equal amounts of recitation 
produce richer returns in the case of senseless non-connected material 
than when connected senseful material is used. The reasons why 
this should be the case have been given in the previous sections of 
this chapter, and it is only necessary here to summarize the factors 
upon which this difference depends. 

In the first place, it was found that recitation was of great service 
in assisting the subject to organize the material into some sort of 
compact and connected whole, such an organization being essential 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 97 

to a thorough mastery of it. The particular means of accomplishing 
this organization were: the formation of bonds between the items 
and accents, modulations of the voice, pauses, and elements of a 
rhythm; the formation of bonds between items and their meaning, 
immediate or distant; the noticing of peculiarities in the text and 
the formation of bonds between items and their position for the 
purpose of breaking up the material into groups; the noticing of 
bonds between items and characteristics of the groups and so on. 
In short, recitation rendered great service in creating usable asso- 
ciations within the material where there was none, or in more 
adequately noticing and exercising those that were already present. 
In nonsense material these bonds between items are absent, and this 
process of organization and creation of associations is difificult and 
essential; learning of such material consists in accomplishing just 
this organization. In the connected sense material such as that used 
in the present experiment, most of these associations are already 
present; the material is already organized, the items are connected 
by serial connections of meaning, rhythms, and the like, by means 
of which the various elements are firmly knit together. The func- 
tion of recitation for the formation of these bonds is not required. 
What is needed is that the ready-formed associations be noticed 
and exercised, although, in most cases, bonds in addition to those 
found in the material will be required. 

A second reason for the better results obtained by reading in the 
case of sense material is closely related to the first and lies in the 
fact that reading is less 'pure' in studying sense material. As 
was remarked earlier, after a certain number of perusals the read- 
ing of either kind of material is probably not pure and becomes 
less and less so as the subject becomes more familiar with it. The 
more easily the material can be grasped, the less pure the reading 
becomes, as a rule. Nonsense material is always rather hard to 
articulate and hard to work with generally, and as a consequence, 
there is less of a tendency to depart from reading when it is pre- 
scribed. But in the case of connected sense material, the reader is 
usually already familiar with the words and phrases as such; only 
the combinations are new and doubtless not all of them. The greater 
fluency and greater familiarity of the material results in combining 
recitation with reading; only certain key words need be noticed, 
the gaps being filled in by recall. The learner can glance along the 
lines, scarcely seeing more than an occasional word which sug- 
gests the context. 

The physiological explanation that was applied to reading and 
recitation in general can be equally well utilized to illustrate these 
points. In recitation the connections between the items (repre- 



98 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

sented in Figures 7 and 8 by P-P^, P-B^, B-B^, etc.) are, in con- 
siderable degree, already given in the material. In fact, the serial 
associations between the words of familiar phrases are already 
fixed in one's nervous system through earlier practice. Recitation, 
as a factor making possible the formation of many connections, is 
consequently not needed. In other cases where the connections 
are less definitely formed, only a small amount of practice is re- 
quired to stamp them in. The result is that in so far as the con- 
nections are ready-formed, reading amounts in all essentials to 
recitation. The eye neglects many of the words as such, fixating 
only occasional points. Reading thus becomes far from pure and 
approaches recitation, in all likelihood, more and more closely as 
the learning advances. 



VI 

CONCLUSIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 

A detailed summary of results will not be attempted at this 
point. Only a few of the results which are of practical importance 
for the work of the school-room will be repeated. The reader who 
wishes a more detailed account of the findings may refer to the 
summaries that are to be found at the close of the previous chapters. 

The compilation of quantitative and introspective evidence has 
shown that reading and recitation are relatively distinct functions 
jn the process of learning. Each has its proper office to perform, 
and to restrict the lea rning entirely to one or t he oth er results in 

loss of time and energ y. Reading, as the introductory function, 

should be employed until the learner is fai rl y well acquainted with 
the mate rial as a whole ; until a method for further attack has been 
tentatively adopted; and until the first attempt at recall will 
meet with some success without too great a distortion of the ma- 
terial. The optimum point for introducing it, thus, occurs early in 
the process, but to introduce it too early, as well as to introduce it 
too late, will have a detrimental effect. In determining the exact 
moment at which recitation can best be introduced, one must take 
into account the length of the lesson, the difficulty of the material, 
the kind of learning that is desired, the age, training, and general 
capacity of the learner. 

The function of recitation, as we have seen, is similar to that of 
practice in any form of sensori-motor learning. Memorization 
consists in selecting certain essential bonds, eliminating the unfit, 
and exercising the former until the connections are so well formed 
that once initiated, the series of responses will occur in proper 
sequence. The laws of use and disuse apply here as in other forms 
of learning; the physiological basis is the same. 

Since recitation is equivalent to practice in other forms of learn- 
ing, we should expect as a matter of course that any restriction 
upon its employment during the process of memorization should 
result in retarding improvement. Our experiments upon this point 
have shown that this is the case. This was true for all subjects, 
except children so young as to be unable to meet the requirements 
of the test, and for all materials employed, although, as might 
reasonably be expected, minor differences are to be found. In 
general, a method in which recitation is introduced at the optimum 



100 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

time, in comparison with a method in which the learner is entirely 
restricted to reading, enables the learner to reproduce immediately 
after a short period of study approximately twice as much material. 
The advantage of recitation as one should expect, is much more 
pronounced in delayed recall. After an interval of three or four 
hours, r ecitation makes possible the recall of four times as much 
.materia l as does reading. This is to be expected, since recitation is 
understood as a process of adequate practice, while reading, whose 
function is introductory, restricts or inhibits the exercise of the 
bonds upon whose strength recall depends. In reading, while 
many of the bonds may be well enough established for immediate 
use, the neural connections rapidly disappear with disuse. 

As the nature of reading and recitation now appears, the ques- 
tion is not so much — How is it that reading produces such poor 
results? — but rather — How is it that reading permits of any memo- 
rization at all? The evidence that has been gathered makes it 
doubtful whether pure reading would result in memorization. But 
there is little doubt that pure reading is a fiction ; more or less recita- 
tion is always present in any prolonged effort to learn. 

The fact that reading is seldom if ever pure can be most clearly 
illustrated in the case of learning sense material, and this fact helps 
us at the same time to understand why reading as a method of 
learning is more fruitful when applied to such material than when 
employed with non-connected senseless material. Nearly all of 
the subjects admitted that their learning, especially of sense mate- 
rial, was not limited to pure reading. The eye moved along the 
line actually seeing only occasional words. Other words, in fact 
whole phrases, were filled in by recall. The text served only to 
suggest groups of words or ideas which were for the most part filled 
in by the learner. In so far as this subjective reproduction of the 
material was carried on, to just that extent the learner was reciting 
rather than reading, and without doubt this sort of recall was at 
all times considerable, becoming more and more so as the learning 
progressed. Consequently, it appears that the memorization of 
the material, technically speaking, must, after all, be attributed to 
recitation. 

The findings of Chapter IV were to the effect that reading 
was much more productive when the material was senseful and con- 
nected than when senseless and non-connected. The previous para- 
graph explains in part why this should be so. Reading of senseful 
connected material is far from pure, while with senseless material, 
on account of its less fluency and lack of senseful serial associations, 
the learner finds it less unnatural to actually see and read each item. 
No associations are present in the material which enable the learner 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING lOI 

to fill in the gaps when only occasional syllables are read. The 
bonds between items must be built up by the learner himself, and 
it is in this process that recitation is of the greatest value. These 
two factors together, namely, that the bonds between items in 
nonsense material must be worked in by the learner and that 
reading is much more pure with this material, explain the relatively 
greater advantage which recitation brings about with nonsense as 
compared to senseful material. 

In addition to the fact that recitation as compared with reading 
enables the learner to form the requisite bonds more quickly and 
more permanently, the results of Chapter V have indicated other 
advantages of recitation as a form of learning. It was found that 
recitation leads to greater certainty of one's knowledge. It enables 
the learner not only to know but to be aware of how well he knows. 
Fewer blunders and erroneous recalls are made. The material is 
better organized; it is in more usable form. The meaning of the 
material is better obtained, and the relations among parts become 
more clear. In addition to this, as Katzaroff found (see page 5), 
material learned by means of recitation can be more promptly 
recalled; the recitation time is less. 

From every point of view the superiority of recitation over 
reading, beyond the few perusals required to furnish the initial 
grasp of the material, is very clear. It holds for all materials and 
for practically all subjects. Consequently, the applications of the 
results to pedagogy are direct and manifestly important. 

For the improvement of methods of study among school chil- 
dren, it is first of all necessary that the teacher should be aware of 
the value of recall in learning and that she should endeavor to 
impart this information in a practicable way to the pupils. That 
the pupils cannot be depended upon to discover economical methods 
of studying by themselves has often been discovered by inquiry. 
Miss M. J. Baldwin,^ for example, found for grammar and high 
school pupils "that eighty-two per cent, studied words rather than 
thoughts, that they study in a mechanical sort of way which enables 
them to say that they have studied the lesson and spent the re- 
quired time. They read the words over and over and doubtless 
get more confused the more they read." 

It is perhaps not sufficient, however, that the pupils should be 
merely aware of the fact that attempted recitation is an essential 
process in learning. The teacher must devise means by which the 
pupils may be induced to study by trying to recall the material 
rather than by merely continuing slavishly to read and reread the 
words. The determination of these means, of course, does not lie 

1 'How Children Study', Archives of Psychology, 1909, No. 12, p. 70. 



102 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

within the scope of this study. It has been the purpose here merely 
to show that the recitation method can be employed, and employed 
very effectively, by pupils from the third grade up. 

A few things which may induce the pupil to rely more upon recall 
will occur to anyone. Any method which requ ires the summarizar 
tion of t he facts of the lesson brings recall into play, since i n such a 
^proc ess the pupil must think over the whol e material, cul l out the 
ess entials, and state in his own word s the main points . The teacher 
should encourage the pupil to react to the lesson in this way and 
reward him for successful attempts. Cond ensations. of the ideas in 
written form, or even better, if possible, summarizing the content 
jjf the lesson mentally, is almost certain to bring rich returns . It 
brings into play the beneficial factors involved in recitation, devel- 
ops power to distinguish the essentials from the unessentials, and 
may develop confidence and satisfaction in the pupil, since it 
enables him to be more certain of his mastery of the material. The 
pupil who has reasonable assurance that he has the lesson in hand 
can approach the recitation before the teacher in a more effective 
frame of mind. 

The fact that recall is of such great importance in learning has 
a significant bearing on the nature of the recitation period in the 
school-room. As Colvin has pointed out:^ "The fact that the reci- 
tation, as such, is largely ignored in higher grades of instruction is 
doubtless a serious pedagogical defect, which can be remedied only 
by accustoming the student to practise on his own initiative recall 
in his learning." The recitation should be regarded not merely as 
an opportunity afforded the teacher to find out what the pupils 
know, how hard they have studied, and what grade they should be 
given. Instead of an inquisition it should become a period of in- 
struction. It should offer the pupil an opportunity to recite material 
he has previously more or less completely mastered. If the silent 
pupils could be induced to recall the material as well as the pupil 
who is orally reciting to the teacher, the period could become a 
valuable opportunity for review. Its most admirable function 
would consist in affording the pupils an opportunity to discover 
where their knowledge is hazy, inexact, and uncertain. 

In addition, the teacher should make of the recitation a means 
of discovering the methods of studying employed by the pupils 
and of suggesting improvements in that respect. The unprepared 
student should not simply be met by the remarks: "How many 
times did you read your lesson?" and "Go read it again!" but more 
detailed inquiry into the cause of failure, followed by more valuable 
suggestions with regard to methods of study, should be the pro- 

2 The Learning Process, New York, 1913, p. 165. 



RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING IO3 

cedure. In a word: "It should be remembered that instruction 
in the technique of learning is perhaps as important as instruction 
in the content of the subjects of the school curriculum."^ 

More advance d _^^s tudigi tsjmay prqfi t^ b^ the knowledge of the 
indispensible value of recitation. The college student is confronted 
by a situation in which the 'absorbing' of knowledge seems para- 
mount, and where reaction is too little required. Listening to 
lectures and reading the texts require most of his time; recitations 
are few and far between. That they 'read lots but learn little' is 
a stock criticism, and it is indeed not seldom true that the college 
student is quite as ignorant of economical methods of study as the 
grammar school pupil. Recently the writer heard the case of a 
college student who came to a professor of psychology for an exam- 
ination of what he believed to be a very poor memory. The student 
asserted that he could read a lesson over a dozen times and still not 
know it. A brief examination showed his memory not to be below 
par, but all the evidence indicated entirely inadequate methods of 
study. The stu dent relied upon impre ssion with little or no effort 
at expression ; recall of the main points of his lesson was seldom 
tried. Yet for the college student who is so seldom called to account 
for his acquirements, recitation is more than usually essential. Fre- 
quen t reviews,^ thinking the matter oyer by one's self, writing briefs 
of the main points, conversation with other st udents, and the like, 
are valuable because they th row into relief the portions that are 
hazy, ine xact, and confused as well a s because they fix more clearly 
in mind the m aterial that is rehearsed . 

Various opinions have been expressed with regard to methods 
of taking notes during lectures."* Doubtless the method must be 
varied somewhat to suit the material that is presented, but the 
findings in the present study suggest a method which, although 
seldom employed, should bring good results. Instead of making of 
one's self a mechanism for transferring spoken words to paper with 
but little heed to the meaning, the student devotes his attention to 
a thorough understanding the material presented, selecting the 
important points, organizing them into a systematic whole as the 
lecture progresses, and for the most part, delaying to a later hour 
the writing of the notes. Later in the day or evening, the lecture 
is rehearsed an dean outline written down for future reference . While 
some disadvantages, or more likely, inconveniences, of such a 
method may appear, certain advantages of an important nature 
are obvious. First of all, the student may develop better habits 

3 Colvin, op. cit., p. 178. 

* This subject will be found discussed at length in two recent books: G. V. N. Dearborn, How 
to Learn Easily, Boston, 1916, Chapter II, and Harry D. Kitson, How to Use Your Mind, Phila- 
delphia, 1916, Chapter II. 



104 RECITATION AS A FACTOR IN MEMORIZING 

of attention during the lecture. JHje fo rces himself to pick out the 
, essen tials, to grasp the relations of ideas and to unify and organize 
the materia l presented. The will to remernber,^, which Meumann so 
strongly emphasizes , com es into play. _^ The student must actively 
grasp the meaning of the lecture in order to be able to reproduce it 
later. Secondly, the writing of a brief of the lecture at a later hour 
combines the advantage of a recitation, which the copious note- 
taker too seldom practises, with the well known benefits to be 
derived from the distribution of learning periods.^ A few students 
who have tried this method speak enthusiastically of its effectiveness. 
Finally, a word with regard to a more technical application of the 
results of this study. Individuals, when permitted to study by 
their 'natural method,' were found to employ various methods, not 
only for different materials, but for lessons of the same material 
and of the same length, at different times. ^ The quantitative 
results consequently vary considerably, according to whether the 
subject does or does not happen to employ an optimum combination 
of reading and recitation. In experimental work on memory and 
learning in which successive tests under constant conditions are 
required, it w ould seem tojbe^an important precautio n to specify 
the time at whic h the learne r shou l d change from reading to at- 
tempted recall, with instructions to employ thereafter the recitatioy 
method until learni ng is complet e . 

5 See Jost. A., 'Die Assoziationfestigkeit in ihrer Abhangigkeit von der Verteilung der Wieder- 
holungen', Zeitschrift fiir Psychologic, 1897, 14, pp. 436-472, or Ebbinghaus, H., Memory, trans- 
lated by H. Ruger and C. Bussenius, New York, I9I3. 

6 But little of the actual data bearing on this point has been presented in this paper. For the 
most part, such data were obtained from the practice tests conducted preliminary to those here 
presented. 



VITA 

Born in Red Wing, Minn., September 22, 1890. Graduated 
from primary school of Fortuna, California, in 1905, and from 
Fortuna High School in 1909. Received degree of B.L. in 1914, 
and M.A. in 191 5, from the University of California. Attended 
Columbia University during the academic year 1916-1917. Assistant 
in Psychology under Professors G. M. Stratton and Warner Brown 
in the University of California during the academic years 1914-1915, 
and 1915-1916. Assistant in Psychology in Columbia University, 
1916-1917. Major work at Columbia taken with Professors J. 
McKeen Cattell, R. S. Woodworth, E. L. Thorndike, and Dr. 
A. T. Pofifenberger, Jr. 



019 820 136 4 



